Homosexuals try to pawn their perceived struggle for complete and total acceptance of their chosen lifestyle as being synonymous with what blacks went through to achieve civil rights. But their attempts to equate their radical agenda with discrimination as defined in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is blatantly false and without merit.
Based on the color of their skin alone, blacks were prevented, in many domiciles because of prejudice and by codification of segregation, from voting, purchasing property where they chose, eating wherever they desired, attending events, ad nauseum.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically defines the act as same. It reads:
“An Act: To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”
The Act was intended to put “teeth,” if you will, into the 14th Amendment.
Homosexual activists are dishonest when they attempt to convince the public that rejection of homosexual marriage is tantamount to the culture of apartheid that opposed interracial dating and marriage. It is not.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to end, prevent and address discrimination – discrimination against men and women regardless of their race and/or color.
While discrimination based on sexual preference is not specifically mentioned, I believe it is logically included in the Act. A woman cannot be discriminated against because she has a dating preference for gargantuanly obese men. A person cannot be discriminated against because he has an attraction to short people. A person’s choice of sexual interest, as long as it is legal, is protected, and it should be.
But I believe and argue that the Act is an appliance that guards against discrimination; it’s not to be used as cover for a malicious agenda that prescribes the redefining of our social construct. Christian organizations must hire homosexuals, and I find that fair (after all what better place for those in need of Christ). But being employed by a Christian organization doesn’t give the employee the constitutional right to change the policies and dogma of said employer. The employee had a choice to seek employment elsewhere.
There are logical exceptions. A morbidly obese person cannot favorably present the image of certain companies, but a person’s color does not affect same (allowing the employer isn’t the Ku Klux Klan). A church has the right to have strict, inflexible standards for ordination and for licensing of their clergy.
Homosexuals argue they are denied certain other entitlements that everyone else enjoys, and they cite the inability to make life-and-death decisions for those they cohabit with, etc. This, too, is a specious and fallacious argument. Heterosexuals cohabiting outside the bonds of marriage do not have the right to make such decisions, either.
That is why responsible people living outside the bonds of marriage make living wills. They take responsible measures to ensure their wishes are carried out and to allow for the person of their choice to make decisions for them in the event one or the other becomes unable to make the decision for himself.
Two men can purchase a property together; they can get health insurance and life insurance policies naming one another as beneficiaries, and so on. Their sexual preference doesn’t matter. Their ability to repay a mortgage, etc., isn’t affected by their sexual preference any more than that of heterosexuals.
I could go on, but suffice it to say the homosexual agenda isn’t about civil rights; it is about their desire to change the social construct by redefining marriage and family.
Legislating an employment and social environment that codifies the ability of an employee to present himself in ways that are detrimental to the welfare and health of the company is ludicrous. I speak specifically of cross-dressing and exhibiting inappropriate behavior.
It is maddening that a person can be discriminated against pursuant to employment and home renting because he smokes cigarettes. But nothing is said to address the fact that the Centers for Disease Control paint a horrifyingly high incidence for deadly disease with respect to the practice of homosexuality – including a staggeringly high rate of breast cancer incidences among lesbian women juxtaposed to heterosexual women.
According to the Centers for Disease Control report on HIV incidence, men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. That rate means that as 1-4 percent of the total population, they’re as much as 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. Women with a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men (American Journal of Public Health).
I would submit it makes more sense for homosexual activists to tell people to flee the practice than it does to claim they are being denied civil rights.