I still believe that ENDA would be a lot easier to pass first rather than national civil unions. People understand employment discrimination on the basis of non-job-related factors, but marriage gets all mixed up with religious beliefs.

OK, then why do we have separate restrooms at all? Perhaps you do not see a need for the separation but if so I would imagine you are in the extreme minority in society on that. No I know of no study that supports this, it is only my impression, but I would be willing to make a small wager that if such a study was conducted the results would show my impression to be correct.

Also I think it is less of an obsession then it is social etiquette and the Denny’s employee is insisting he be allowed to defy etiquette.

While I could support much of what ENDA seeks to accomplish I am against the protections it would give to cross dressers. If it would be illegal for an employer to insist trans gender men must use the men’s restroom (please note I am not talking about trans sexuals) then I believe such people would in fact receive special and unwarranted protection.

Perhaps up in Maine they can settle things by passing a law that requires three separate restrooms. On the left is the men’s, on the right the women’s, in the middle would be the one with the question mark on the door for the trans genders.

You are certainly free to “believe that homosexuality is immoral.” It is admirable that, despite that belief, you are tolerant enough that you “do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, and will not do business with anyone that does.”

Unfortunately, many others do “project their morality on others” and discriminate on that basis. That is why laws are needed to prohibit employment discrimination and to ensure equal protection under the law.

Exactly. So just because the law does not necessarily create “special” rights for gay people, there is nothing to PROHIBIT state or local governments or organizations such as universities from recognizing the EQUAL rights of gay people.

Thanks, David Campbell, for an intelligent and accurate discussion of the current state of the law.

You seem to believe that it is fine to disrespect my beliefs and proceed to belittle me as if you know me. I said everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. If being gay floats your boat, go for it.

I specifically said I do not project my morality on others. It is mine and mine alone. I have not attacked you personally, presumed to know your beliefs, or condemned anyone for being gay, or anything else. I have hired lesbians at my business, though I can’t say I have hired a gay. I own an office type business and honestly, in this field, have only had one or two males apply. None made it to the interview stage.

When I say I believe homosexuality is immoral, that is what I believe. I am not judging or condemning, I was brought up in the church, even considered becoming a minister, and that is simply a core belief. I also believe gambling to be immoral, as well as drinking alcohol. Yet I try to get to Vegas once a year, and if you want to find me, I will be drinking a Rum and Coke at a Blackjack table.

I also believe drugs are immoral, yet I went to VCU in the 70’s and played in long haired rock bands. You may draw conclusions on my conduct then, and would probably not guess half of what I did. And I absolutely believed it was immoral.

Now, there are a number of things I believe are immoral that I have never done, like the aforementioned homosexuality and cheating on my wife of 27 years.

But I do believe your personal attacks on me are uncalled for. You may disagree with what I write, but those statements are very intolerant. Something you mistakenly accuse me of being.

Reasonable people can disagree, but there is never a call for personal attacks.

Gays are NOT singled out as a special class in any SCOTUS case based on the 14th amendment. Period. Can’t happen.

You are intentionally misleading people with such a title. Gays are not covered by the 14th amendment as a special class.

Everyone is covered by the 14th amendment.

The Cuccinelli statement said:
“public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ’sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly”

“as a protected class” is the operative phrase. Cuccinelli is clearly speaking to the creation of a protected class, prohibited by the 14th.

Your statement:
It does not “single out” one class of people for favorable treatment or “special privileges.”

is a different argument altogether.

Cuccinelli’s statement does not preclude the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in a school’s policy. It is his opinion that is is not permissible under Va. policy to create a “special class”. He also believes the 14th amendment prohibits granting special status to any group.

The phrase “sexual orientation” when used as an inclusive term for ALL people will pass muster under the Constitution’s 14th. What will not pass muster is the enumeration of a specific class of those protected. If the law or rule states “sexual orientation” and it applies to every person, it is fine under the 14th. If it defines “sexual orientation” as “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty, students, administrators and staff” to the exclusion of all other sexual orientations, it is unconstitutional.

The current non-discrimination policy of VCU, for instance, sets up and enumerates “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty, students, administrators and staff” as the specific target of the policy. This is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th. Straight people are omitted, as are various other sexual orientation classifications. If VCU were to strike that line, and leave it at sexual orientation – period – it would be fine. But most of these go the extra mile and make it unconstitutional by specifying the members of the class.

Your statement that they are NOT setting up a special class is simply not true in the real world. VCU has definitely specified the protected class.

http://www.news.vcu.edu/news/VCU_Board_of_Visitors_Reaffirms_Nondiscrimination_Policy

If Cuccinelli were to take this to court, I have no doubt he would win. But the volume of the whining from the left has been sufficient that your temper tantrums now preclude the AG from taking this to the Supreme Court.

But when you say the goal is simply equality, not a special class, that is clearly a lie.

For an example of a policy that includes sexual orientation in a constitutional way, look to University of Richmond. Here is an example of a discrimination policy done right.

http://undergraduatecatalog.richmond.edu/general/non-discrimination.html