You already have the same rights.
The entire marriage debate is framed as a rights issue – but let’s not get into that. Otherwise, I admit I misspoke. The problem is not so much in rights as it is in their protection; although if rights are not protected, what good are they? As it stands now, I can be fired or rejected for hire merely on the basis of a private, personal choice
and I have little to no recourse. If a straight person is fired for peccadilloes off company time – also a private, personal choice – he or she can sue, no problem.
Politically gay groups want a type of special right that does not exist and cannot exist. There is no right to do wrong. There is no reason to have civil law contradict natural law.
Corporations should not be in business to enforce after-hours moral behavior on their employees, and since it seems some people don’t understand that I can see a need for this kind of legislation.
Natural law is not agreed upon as a basis for government; it is a religious principle, and therefore is not appropriate as the foundation of a secular law which must take into account that people do not adhere to one moral standard. Similarly, definitions of what is wrong differ, and if an action causes no direct, objective harm to another without consent, I see no reason to have civil law forbid it.
There is no reason to allow openly gay persons in certain positions that would influence children. As my link to the Vatican document points out it is not unjust to deny certain people certain jobs.
And why, pray tell, should a homosexual who is qualified and willing to care for children and is blameless otherwise even in your eyes be prohibited from taking a job doing just that? I agree with the principle, of course – there is reason to deny an embezzler a position as an accountant, and there is reason to turn down a narcoleptic for a long-distance truck driver – but its application here is not based on actual crimes or on tangible danger, rather instead on vague cries of moral turpitude.
I think it is a much more sophisticated issue then you portray here. If one simply had an inclination to the same sex but never mentioned it or did not live in an openly gay way that would not even be an issue. The issue here seems to be people wanting to live in this so called gay way and then claiming employers may never discriminate based on this conduct.
And if a business discriminates by not hiring flamboyant heterosexuals? Would not that be unfair? It
is a simple issue at heart: are we free to choose how to live our personal lives without having to worry about the company firing us for doing something a higher-up disapproves of
off the clock, with no impact on the company?
Academic distinctions seem to be as political and artificial as many other things these days.
Considering how often people, almost always those with an anti-homosexuality agenda, conflate homosexuals and pederasts it’s an important one.
