Yes, it is possible to be gay and religious, but...

It's not a "word play", I'm talking about the law and how it works. I'm not trying to offend any of you sensitives. Suspended for what, talking about how laws apply to things? Hahaha, that's hilarious.

Haha, yea, the answers are never clear enough.

I would argue that Stankleberry Sullivan should be prohobited from having sex with anyone as cruel and unusual punishment is already forbidden by the constitution.

That is just one interpretation. Your mileage may vary.

Ok, I'll tackle your badly-formated dictionary citation head-on.

1) Defines a term by using the same term. Invalid.

2) For purposes of this discussion, same as 1

3) Being gay does not prevent me from doing anything. Hell, if I so desired, I could even get married and have kids. Wouldn't change the fact I'm gay, but I could do it.

4) Again, circular logic in this case.

So, no, that law does not apply to homosexuality.

Despite what the phrase "catch the ghey" might make you think, no, being gay is not a disability.

Yes, I'm sure about that.

Are you disabled because you are strait?

I'm not saying that homosexuality is a disability, I am just talking about the law that someone posted. I am thinking like a lawyer.

In this day in age, a lawyer would not be able to successfully argue that homosexuality was a disability in most courts.

If that was the original intent of the law, the law as written should be clarified. Hence, this proposal.

Regardless of which the case is, if the law already says this, then then what is the harm in clarifying the point? That's right, none... Unless the law doesn't say this, in which case, to the minds of those bigots pulling this stunt, there is everything to be gained by stopping the change.

So, either the law:

Already covers this case, and simply needs to be updated to conform with modern standards and sensibilities regarding the issue, in which case there is no cause for a valid objection the revision

or

The law does not cover this, in which case arguing against the change is arguing for the law to allow people to legally discriminate one minority in specific, which is not ok.

How many years before businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against people based on intelligence?

In the market for a job?

Slippery slope? This doesn't apply. Applying for a job and not getting it because of your lack of education or you're just not smart enough is not the same as losing your home because you're gay or being fired from a job you already have because the boss finds out you're gay.

Apples vs. Oranges.

I'd more call it reduction to the absurd, which Stank has already shown a habbit of resorting to.

AR'ed.

P2

ditto

You know, I was thinking more or less the same thing.

der hippies

Good.

Edit: in response to the police blotter quote I meant...

Yay I am happy I just renewed my MSDN Universal subscription - go Microsoft

I've removed the intolerant remarks from this thread and wanted to take a minute to remind everyone about one of the "Big Six" behavioral guideline from the Community Standards, copied below for convenience:

Thank you Jeska!

Now where were we?

Would it be impudent or off-topic to ask just how many times a stanky troll needs to be "rehabilitated" before he's considered a recidivist?

Or more poetically: How much derail could a stank-troll troll if a stank-troll could derail?

I can see how some people would have this fear. I am not one of those people.

Well, from a quick glance through the "Problem Solvers" catagory, it has everything from medical reports to crime reports to racism incidents... It appears to be kinda a general "catch all" for anything that isn't sports or weather or some such.