There are two issues being discussed here.
The first is the legal issue.
One can say that one does not believe that anyone should get special privileges based on any characteristic, such as having a crime against you be a felony "hate crime" while the same crime against another is just a misdemeanor assult.
One can say that one feels that certain characteristics, such as those the legislature actually listed in the law in question are deserving of such a special privilege, while sexual proclivites are not.
Both are legitimate views.
You left out the third view. That view believes that crimes of hate (or as you put it, "certain characteristics . . . deserving of such a special privilege") should also relate to those committed due to a victim's sexual orientation. I wonder why you failed to mention this third view.
Then there is the postition taken by the 2 farthest lefts on the court. Which is even though the law says one thing, you want it to read a different way, so it does. When you go down that path, the judicial branch is substuiting what it thinks for what the law says. If you believe in that, then WHATEVER a judge says on any subject at any time is the same as the word of God. You cease to live in a system of laws and enter a system of rule by decree. Up means down, black means while, stay means go, because some judge thinks it should and subsutites her views for those of the legislature.
.
This shows your simple-mindedness. The dissenting opinion from Justice Workman was a valid and strong argument. She did not manipulate the wording of the statute. It is also why you have failed to refute her opinion.
To summarize, she acknowledged that sex/gender was a protected class under the statute. The victim in this, according to Butler's comments, was beaten because he was acting in a way that Butler felt was not right for a male to be doing. In other words, the victim was beaten due to his sex. That isn't a reach. It isn't a manipulation of the statute. It is a valid and logical argument. Had the victim been holding hands or kissing a female, he wouldn't have been beaten. Had the victim been a female, she wouldn't have been beaten. The victim was beaten due to his sex; he was not acting in a manner in which Butler felt was appropriate for a male to be acting.
Again, try using some logic to refute her opinion. She has presented a strong and logical argument. Now, I can find a bit of a hole in it, but I know you don't have the intelligence to do so, but I invite you to try.
The second is the nature of homosexuality. It is unfortunate that the only response to an opinion different from his own that the troll can come up with is that they are "dumb". In fact, in my lifetime, the so-called scientific "certainty" has changed from one OPINION to the opposite OPINION. Which would tend to show that there is no legitimate science on the subject either way, and thus one OPINION is just a valid as the next.
Wrong. You are looking at the wrong thing. The question relating to this situation isn't if homosexuals are born with a gay trait. That has no relevance in this situation. Why? It is because protected classes are not necessarily based on an existence of a trait from birth. If that weren't the case, religion wouldn't be a protected class, yet we know that to be the case.
So, the correct question to ask is simply if sexual orientation should be a protected class alongside other traits that include both people whom are born the traits and people whom choose the trait (religion, and with your argument, sexual orientation).
Now, if you want to discuss the merits behind making sexual orientation a protected class or not, I am all for it. But the lack of logic you have presented in asking the wrong question relating to this situation leads me to believe you aren't well-equipped enough for me to waste much time on it.
It is, however, an insult to visable minorities to equate a sexual proclivity (and, oddly, only one set of sexual proclitites among the many) with their status. A visable minority is, well, visable. 100% of the time. A black man trying to get a motel room at 2 AM from a racist innkeep is in a far different situation from someone who keeps private what should be private.
Oh, you decided to double-down on your illogical stance. You are now claiming that it isn't necessary to protect certain classes of people who you can't initially tell fit a certain group. In West Virginia, protected classes include political affiliation, religion, ancestry, national origin, and others. The first four I listed, many times, cannot be identified by that inn-keeper in your example. So, should those things not be protected classes?
A minority being "visible" or not is an absurd argument to back your opinion on. Further, claiming that holding hands or kissing somebody of the same sex in public should be "kept private," in turn excluding it from being protected, is the epitome of bigotry. It is no different than arguments against interracial relationships decades ago.
There are logical arguments for your stance; both regarding the dissenting opinion and homosexuality as a protected class. However, the arguments you presented are foolishly illogical and not one of the intelligent arguments against my stances on the subjects.
Perhaps next he can check spelling.
.
I'd love to, though with you, it is time-consuming to do. I won't bother with those things I feel are simply typos, but rather, just will acknowledge the ones that you show not to have the intelligence to correctly spell:
No, that isn't even close.
That's your second attempt at the word, and it is your second miserable failure.
It really isn't a difficult word to spell.
Nope. How about trying again . . .
Ugh. I gave you a second chance, and you still butchered it. And did you just say "clit?"
Nope. Try again . . .
Ugh. Strike two. Want to try again?
Sorry, but I can only give you three chances, especially with such a basic word.
I am not being a dick to you for once with this question: Do you suffer from any learning disabilities? Dyslexia or anything? Again, I am not being a dick. You are a good writer. The logic in your arguments and the incorrect things you attempt to pass off as fact (again, true factual things, not just opinion arguments) leave a lot to be desired. But, usually when somebody is a good writer and articulate, they also can spell at a decent level. Yet, your atrocious at spelling . . . and these aren't the typos where you just incorrectly hit the wrong key. They are examples of you butchering the same word repeatedly and trying to spell basic words the exact same, incorrectly in the same way, each time.
Is there a disability? If so, I will take it easy on mocking you for those things. But for your illogical arguments . . . naw, that ain't changing.
