homophobia
noun
noun: homophobia
1.
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Describe how disliking an entire group of people that you don't know is rational.

And what rights are homosexuals asking for that will only apply to them? The way I hear it, they want the same rights that other people have now.

I'm sorry, who is asking for special rights and privileges that only they should have? And what are they asking for that will only apply to them and no one else? It sounds like you're describing religious people wanting special treatment because they are religious.

No, I read that you have major problems when the federal government "compels" a "private individual" to "violate their religious beliefs." That's not what the case is about, the case is about whether the government can require a corporation to provide insurance that covers contraception. See how I stated that without saying anything about violating religious beliefs, and how I accurately described it as a corporation and not a private individual? It's not like the government is forcing everyone to take contraception, is it? Not that having everyone on contraception would be a terrible thing.

That is speculation. It's no more likely to go up then it is likely to go down.

The fact that the FDA regulates the devices in question, and that they are not covered by abortion laws and regulations, indicates that those medications and devices are not considered to constitute abortion. It doesn't really matter what the employer thinks they do.

When a corporation can be murdered, or jailed for murder, then I'll agree that a corporation is a person.

I know that, I am simply aware of the rhetoric. This is an issue of companies supplying insurance to their employees. But the way people describe it, the evil federal government is compelling upon pain of very nasty things that private individuals must violate all of their most closely held and sacred religious beliefs. The discussion could do without the rhetoric. The question is whether an employer has to provide insurance that covers medication that, for whatever reason, the employer does not want to pay for. Religion has zero basis on the actual issue. It doesn't matter why they don't want to pay for it. Saying it's a religious belief does not automatically elevate it up to some mythical righteous level.

Religion has a special place in my heart. In general, my opinion of an individual is inversely proportional to how religious they are (this doesn't apply to every religion, only the ones who have earned it). I wasn't born this way though, this feature of me has been very carefully molded and crafted by many groups and politicians over the last 3 or 4 decades. I see what happens in the name of religion, and I strongly oppose it. Religion, like sex, should happen behind closed doors and out of the sight and reach of the government. The inverse is true as well. Government should happen out of the sight and reach of religion.

I absolutely believe in the golden rule. Why do you think I have such a negative opinion about religion?

Are you asking me about tax law? I'm not the person to ask. I don't think "defacto relationship" is even a legal thing. Maybe you're thinking about a common law marriage.

Look up my comments on polygamy or polyandry in this very thread. There is zero reason why 4 people should not be allowed to marry each other. The only justification I can think of for having a law like that is because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS, which in my opinion is not a valid reason.

Abusing children and treating women, or any other person, like slaves is already illegal. There doesn't need to be an additional law to try and make something else illegal in order to prevent what is already illegal. That's like here in Arizona where we have a law that says that something like 6 or more unrelated women cannot live in the same house, because of prostitution. That law doesn't need to be there, prostitution is already illegal. There's no reason to outlaw 6 women living together, and there's no reason to outlaw plural marriage.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite actually.

I said a "simple" difference of opinion. This is a difference of opinion, but not a simple one. It sounds like the person I was responding to was trying to break down what I said into the smallest possible unit, if I would refuse to work with anyone who I disagreed with on any minor issue.

I'm not sure if it's a majority, but I do have a fundamental problem with anyone who puts their own religious freedom in front of anyone else's rights.

I am.

I've considered it. I have a plan that entails just that.

That is no longer true.

Because the place where you mentioned "attacks", "unidirectional", "views", etc, is the same sentenced where you used "it" to refer to Prop 8. And this whole discussion is about Eich's support of Prop 8. I didn't realize you were using your post as a blanket criticism of all of the views and opinions of every person that you consider to be on "the left".

If a gay person does not have the legal right to obtain a marriage license to marry the person that he is in love with, a person of the same gender, then it is a rights issue. Just because I also don't have that same right does not mean it is not a rights issue. The reason it is not an issue for me is because I don't desire to exercise that right.

I'm "the left", am I? Is that because I think that everyone should have the same basic set of rights? What do you believe? Is the belief that someone should be allowed to get a marriage license to marry any consenting adult they want to marry a "left" issue? So, today I learned that I am on "the left", and I am also intolerant. Thanks for the fantastic discussion. I'll refrain from putting any labels on you, because I don't know the first thing about you or what you believe or what you've lived through.

A homophobe? No, I doubt that he had an irrational fear of homosexual people. Anti-gay? Yeah. Also a slimy political douche for only taking a stand when it is politically advantageous, like every other politician. He's also kind of a lying asshole. I don't think he lives in fear of gay people though.

Last time I checked, that remains legal. Even here in Arizona. I believe they call that the "right to refuse service for any reason." Of course, those running public businesses providing services to the general public do have additional restrictions placed on them, in that they cannot provide public services to a subset of the public, it's either all or nothing. Private clubs don't have those restrictions.

The only time I feel like lashing out is when a religious group thinks that they deserve special treatment for being religious. They don't. I remain the enemy of anyone trying to push the United States farther into the territory of theocracies.

I would disagree, I would say that it is the right to those benefits. That's a technicality though.

In general I agree with you. As far as I can tell, the reason why polygamy or polyandry is outlawed is pretty much because it would be a pain in the ass for the IRS. I don't see any other reason to outlaw it. The IRS could use a little fixing itself.

First, there has been no decision on that case, only arguments. As to whether contraception is a civil rights issue, it sounds like that depends which gender you are. The female justices supported the right of employees to receive contraception through insurance, while the male justices were more skeptical.

Based on how you phrased that, it is obvious where your own personal bias lies. So, allow me to point out that no, the government is not currently compelling employers to pay for medication. The corporation has the choice to not provide insurance for their employees, and instead pay the fine. The justices noted that this is their choice, and that in fact the fine is less than the cost of insurance.

You've called them "private individuals", but that is not correct. The owners of the company have no requirement to provide insurance. The actual company as a legal entity does. One of the justices rightly asked the question of how the religion of a company can be determined.

They also pointed to the case of an Amish farmer suing the government because he did not want to pay social security taxes for his employees, because paying taxes violated his religious beliefs. He did not win that case. Religious beliefs do not trump everything else. I can start a religion that believes that black people should be eradicated from the planet, but that does not give me the right to murder people. A person who owns a corporation is free to believe that contraception is a sin, but that does not make them exempt from providing insurance to their employees or paying a fine. That's the way it is. If they have a problem with that, then there are several countries where religion and law are the same, they can move there. In my country, religion is not law.

Insubordination is willfully disobeying a superior. Assuming these people are still doing their jobs, asking the CEO to step down is not insubordination.

From what I've heard expressed, generally yes, I do.

If it is an issue that is important enough to me, sure. For example, if I am interviewing with a company and I find out that the CEO is actively supporting a campaign to restrict the human rights of a large class of people, then that would be enough to get me to not want to enrich that person.

Just a simple difference in opinion? No, I wouldn't, but I don't think we're talking about a simple difference of opinion here.

The reason why the attacks are unidirectional is because gay marriage, or the larger issue of gay rights, is a human rights issue. All you need to do is look back across history to figure out if the side that protects, or the side that attacks, human rights is the "right" side. It's pretty obvious. In the future, people opposed to gay rights today are going to be seen similarly to those who fought against civil rights in the 60s. 2 men or 2 women getting married has the same impact on your life as a black man marrying a white woman. There is no reason to not allow that. The only justification people have for not supporting gay rights is because of their own prejudice.