However, the issue with the blacks is simply different, and that pendulum will not swing back, because it was broken off. Gays don't have the numbers, or the support, or the history of horror at the hands of Americans that blacks do. The only other people who have a valid claim to some sort of special law set because of the past are the Amerindians, and they do have various treaty rights, etc.
These are good points. The main reason I have wondered if doing away with laws that require businesses to serve every race, creed, color, etc. is because of the philosophical shift away from individual freedom it led to. Racism is a nasty thing. But at least for now, I think you are right that the pendulum was pretty much broken off when it comes to racism. If it were legal not to serve minorities, I believe if a restaurant in the deep south refused to serve blacks, whites and blacks together would vote with their feetj and the place wouldn't be able to break even. That's the situation we are in.
Would it really be wrong if a Vietnamese restaurant were allowed to have an official policy only to hire ethnic Vietnamese, especially for the cooking? What about an African furniture store that hired only people of African heritage? I think our social climate would allow for these things if there weren't laws. Jews only hiring Jews in the kosher butcher shop should be considered protected under the constitution since that deals with religion. I'm not sure if this has come up in the courts
The logic of the gay movement irresistibly presses onward to pedophilia, and that is where it - unlike the black civil rights movement - touches the third rail and ends up being rolled back.
It certainly does. Homosexuals have an attraction for the opposite sex. Their movement has labeled this an 'orientation'. Pedophiles have a strong attraction for children. Logically, it's the same thing, an 'orientation.' Of course, the LGBT folks have gotten special protection not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. Someone could not hire me because they don't like my nose or my weight (if it is not from a medical condition) or because I express an opinion they don't like. But people who desire to perform sinful sexual acts get special protection against discrimination over that. Why shouldn't this logically extend to pedophiles. The EEOC has extended a precedent set by a Pricewaterhouse case in the late 1980's to include LGBT issues.
If they are logically consistent, then the EEOC would have to back pedophiles who are refused work at a school because of their pedophilia orientation or zoophiles who are refused work at a ranch over their zoophile orientation, or necrophiliacs at the mortuary.
Some people think this is ridiculous. It goes against contempory mores and values too much. But so did the LGBT thing even 20 years ago when the US still had people with a slightly less degenerated sense of sexual morality. Yet the morality slid. The narrative got twisted. Those who oppose sinning against God in these areas are considered immoral.
Part of the shift in American culture came in the sexual revolution, with 'free sex' among young college students, legalizing killing babies in the womb to cover up from the free sex, massive acceptance of no-fault divorce and remarriage with churches being silent, winking at it, or accepting it. Now, even some people who profess to be Christians are in favor of arsenokoites as clergymen, so called 'gay-marriage.' If the slide into the immoral abbys has gone this far, who is to say the narrative won't shift to say that sex with kids doesn't really hurt them? They just need to get some academics on their side to generate agenda-driven studies and some media to spin the research a certain way? I hope it doesn't go that far.
We're really not going to be, as a society, bullied into calling men "she" because they demand it. We'll vote in a long line of Trumps and tear the law apart and remake it if that is where it keeps on being pushed.
I hope they aren't all Trumps, but I do hope there is a backlash against the perversion. Trump doesn't seem that adamant on this particular issue.