The bottom line is the author seeks a variety of protections and entitlements from society and government. That’s fine; everyone does, to some extent. Some of these are the same as the rest of us enjoy, so that’s fine too. As is usually the case when an identity group seeks accommodation and gain from society at large, the author is a bit too expansive. Plus, she presents everything in a self-centered way, ignoring the fact that the rest of society may be adversely impacted by some of these issues. In my opinion, some of these issues present a conflict of differing rights.
For example, she decries states that do not explicitly protect LGBTQ in cases of school bullying. One would understand from reading that that bullying is permitted in those states as long as the target is LGBTQ. Does anyone believe that? ALL bullying is prohibited in those states. Is the author advocating that LGBTQ be named as a special category for extra protection that would not be available to a child bullied for being overweight? Or pimply? Or nerdy? Silly me; of course she is.
I have the same objection to “hate crimes” as a category. Notice how she frames that issue; “I have no protection against hate crimes here”. She has the same protection against crime that we all do; what she wants is special protections that the rest of us don’t have. Is the killing of your child because he’s LGBTQ a worse tragedy to you than the killing of mine for some other reason? So much so that the killer deserves extra punishment? Isn’t deliberate killing a form of hate anyway? How about a husband who kills his wife because he hates her; how is that a lesser crime somehow because it doesn’t fit the hate crime categories? The ultimate result of ever expanding categories of “hate crimes” will eventually be extra punishment for all identity victims except straight white males. How is that different then from proclaiming that killing straight white males will result in less punishment? “Hate crime” categories actually protect no one more than anyone else. The extra punishments simply make the identity groups feel more valued than the rest of us. And how is that not discrimination?
And observe how she frames the issue regarding religious objections: “I can be denied human rights due to religious freedom laws”. So if a gay couple calls one wedding agency after another until they find one who declines for religious reasons to serve their wedding ceremony, then they are “denied human rights”? This tactic has been done; they willingly rejected all those agencies who were happy to accept their business to find the one who wasn’t. This I find contemptible. All these years LGBTQ have been demanding tolerance from society as a right; now that they have it written in law, they are intolerant of the (extremely) few who decline the opportunity to serve their wedding ceremonies, but who would happily serve them in every other way. When there are so many willing to accept your wedding business, and the only cost to you is to make one more phone call, you can hardly expect the rest of us to gasp in horror that you are “denied human rights”. But you go right ahead and sue those bigots into bankruptcy; feel better now? Think the rest of us are applauding, do you?
Same thing with how she frames adoption issues: “I can be denied parenting rights”. It’s a fact that specifically Catholic orphanages, which specialize in hard to place children with special needs, will place children only in homes with stable, married couples. And that church doesn’t consider two same-sex people married, so won’t place them there. But all state orphanages and most private religious orphanages will. So her “parenting rights” are readily available from those places. But once again, here is what I find so contemptible. Gay activists have specifically sued Catholic orphanages over that restriction, and of course won in court. The result is that those orphanages have been shut down. Who suffers? Those special needs children! Let’s say it plainly: gay activists put their own pique ahead of the welfare of special needs orphans. Shutting down those Catholic orphanages did not place a single additional child with a single gay couple; gays gained nothing but smug satisfaction from shutting them down. Despicable! Anyone out there still applauding?
The author demands that other spheres of normal commerce and accommodation be specifically named as protecting LGBTQ by statute. HUD is investigating whether housing discrimination to LGBTQ is a serious enough problem to warrant regulations. At the moment, there’s only anecdotes; no evidence of widespread discrimination. The mere fact that LGBTQ are not named specifically in state housing laws does not mean it is a significant problem. Again, I suspect this demand is made more out of pique than to solve a real problem. We’ll see when the HUD study is finished.
I can be fired for any reason. If the boss doesn’t like my haircut, I can be fired. Why should the author be more protected than I? The author simply seeks a reason for a fired LGBTQ person to bring a lawsuit. Making LGBTQ difficult to fire will simply result in making employers reluctant to hire them. Rarely are good employees fired for such reasons, but special protections for any group from being fired makes all in that group less likely to be hired.
The gender issue is one where LGBTQ have shown zero regard for the rest of us, in their zeal to accommodate themselves. The one in ten thousand people who identify as female despite their male biology feel, they tell us, discomfort changing or showering with men. Although those men have no idea of that situation. Therefore, solely to make that person feel more comfortable, all women and girls have to endure the discomfort of having men in the shower or changing with them. Worse, the laws granting men that right of access to ladies’ facilities do undeniably open that door to predators, making our wives and daughters less safe. But the gender warriors don’t give a rat’s backside about any of that.
To the LGBTQ, none of these issues center on a conflict of rights, because only the LGBTQ have rights, or more accurately, their rights trump the rights of everyone else in all cases. LGBTQ and this author are solely concerned with what they want, everyone else be damned.