So you are alright with your state taxes going to employee benefits for couples with AIDS, etc.
A gay landlord SHOULD be able to refuse housing to heteros. Anything else is an indefensible abridgement of the gay's property rights, as in Kelo vs. New London.
"This case has nothing to do with the inflammatory title "Homosexual Agenda"
You are very wrong. This case "established" that there is no rational reason for society to disfavor homosexuality. If Roberts voluntarily elected to assist those arguing the unconstitutionality of the Colorado amendment, we should all be concerned.
You are so clueless it ain't even funny. (Or maybe you're a proponent of the gay agenda, who knows.) Making sexual orientation a status for protection is a key element in the gay agenda. If some homo wants to only rent to homos, that's his business. Old Mrs. Thompson shouldn't be forced to take on a homo couple or unmarried couple if she doesn't want to.
Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
In his dissent (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas), Justice Scalia wrote:
Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject [homosexuality], it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions.
Not sure what Roberts' role actually was in this case, though. And I'm not sure if this story was pushed by the left to erode his support among conservatives, or by the GOP to erode opposition to him on the left.
"The case was about protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation."
People SHOULD be able to discriminate against someone because they're a homosexual.
If some guy dressed in a dress and high heels comes into my store looking for work, I'm gonna tell him to get the hell out of there.
Same thing if he comes to my house and wants to rent a room from me...we're fighting this nonsense in the Oregon legislature right now, the Dems are trying to pass a "Civil Unions" bill that also has an anti-discrimination plank in it.
Ed
That is precisely the 'homosexual agenda,' as it is the liberal agenda--have government force everyone to accept and approve of everyone else's behavior.
F that. I want to be able to stop my tenants from dancing to 'I Will Survive' at 4 a.m. I want to be able to rent only to married couples who have both been surgically sterilized and don't have pets, or to only guaranteed 100% flaming homos if I feel like it so they'll redecorate. And I want to be able to associate, in business and in private, with whoever I choose, not who the gummint says I have to.
The liberal agenda is so pervasive you don't even know that what you're advocating isn't liberty--it's government enforcing what it considers liberty.