There is some pretty...pretty...scientific stats being thrown around here. They may sound like complete conjecture or, simply, guesses... but they are the FACTS. Like one person has ever been fired for being homosexual... uhhh... cuz I guessed it hard in head thinker.

This point has already been made. And the response is that that puts gays on the same footing as heterosexuals legally, not a different one.

Of course discrimination exists. It also exists for unattractive people and people who don't have charming personalities.

Which is more morally acceptable, firing a person because they're

(a) gay
(b) straight
(c) unattractive

It must be exciting to never make two posts without changing the issue...makes for a lousy discussion, though.

The statement is that gays have the same rights as straights. In states where there are no laws that strictly prohibit gays from being fired due to their sexual orientation, there are no laws prohibiting straights from being fired due to their sexual orientation.

You then chose to argue something completely different...that it's incredibly rare for a straight person to be fired for being straight. When I agreed but pointed out that it's also extremely rare for a person to be fired just for being gay, you changed the topic again and tried to turn it into a value judgment.

I made no statement towards the value of the laws. I simply acknowledged their existence.

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

that is a fun way to look at it. what is the point of this discussion? discrimination exists, so why do anything about it... is an apathetic response, that is usually the symptom of deeper fears. There are stupid people, lets close the schools! mostly i see people who are weary of a changing society, who want to justify not changing it.

Good idea. As soon as you start clamoring for laws protecting unattractive people, you can stop being a hypocrite.

Holy moly! Never thought I'd see the day you finally came out in opposition to affirmative action and quotas in the workplace. Kudos to you brother!

So your answer is that they're all equal in terms of moral acceptability?

The point of the discussion is to accurately define the issue before we start passing laws. As written, gays have every right that straights have. That doesn't mean that the laws are fair/just/adequate/etc. It's simply a matter of identifying what the current laws do and do not address.

I'm glad over-weight is not on that list.

We already have racially or disability based hiring practices and admission practices going on in the name of diversity or Affirmative Action. How is that really any different? That's considered acceptable in some places.

The point of that particular part of the discussion was that gays are already treated equally (relative to straights) when it comes to employment laws. What is it that you want to do about discrimination?

Did you mean to write this?

Yes.