There is NO scientific basis for the anthropologist’s system for race classification. I will grant that Crystal has misspoken about her skin color in this particular respect.

But your pseudo-intellectual pathway for pinning bigotry on Crystal is fatuous at best and bordering on idiotic.

I will completely disregard your comment on Crystal’s “Christianity.” Should I assume that you issue the challenge based on your own assumed superiority in attributes considered Christian? In fact, I suspect that you disdain religion in general and a strong Christian faith in particular.

Your moniker reveals three of your “credentials.” I match you in two of them, but I am straight. Shall we compare number of PhD’s held and issuing institutions? When all is said and done, such puffery proves far more was said than accomplished.

How dare you brand Crystal Dixson a bigot? Your gayness has trumped any academic license that may have ever been accorded to your smug, complacent self. Teaching is not a pulpit, it is a sacred trust.

Second, if she really DIDN’T act on her beliefs, what kind of Christian does that make her?

What do you mean, “could”? Under current law, they can and do.

And frankly, that’s fine by me from a legal standpoint. I think it’s kind of dumb on their part, but hey, it’s your business; run it however you like.

I hear arguments from the right all the time that employers should be able to hire whoever they like.

That unsubstantiated premise is critical to your dumb as a brick conclusion.

You have evidence that the right wants to ditch age discrimination, race discrimination, gender discrimination, disability discrimination? Perhaps, in your world a health spa would have to employ a 700 pound bed bound receptionist who sucks on three cigarettes at once.

The joy of deconstructing liberal drivel is in dealing with the wide open, no holds barred attacks on pure common sense.

Houndentenor, you need to reread “Lord of the Flies.” The dictatorship of liberal political correctness is not a pretty thing.

Let’s take a straight man who behaves homosexually, say in prison. Does he stop being heterosexual? Is there precious little identifying him as heterosexual? Goodness, no.

But, ILC, if one were to argue, as gay leftists do, that there is no choice involved in behavior and that it is all predetermined by orientation, this person could never “behave homosexually” in the first place.

The fact that he can, as well as the fact that “gay-oriented” people can have sex with the opposite sex and sire/deliver children, indicates to a strong degree that it is not an immutable characteristic, and that there is a considerable amount of choice involved in its expression.

Again, Ms. Dixon cannot choose to be white. Nor can she choose to act more like a white person, since there is no specific behavior that can be traced to skin color; she is black, and she will remain black, regardless of her actions.

The problem is, though, ILC, if you chose to behave as a heterosexual does, there would be virtually zero there identifying you as gay - especially since there are no genetic markers or phenotypic indicators of you being so.

So in other words, NDT, ILC could “pass”. You really can be an asshole.

The problem is, though, ILC, if you chose to behave as a heterosexual does, there would be virtually zero there identifying you as gay

Let’s take that for a test drive. Let’s take a straight man who behaves homosexually, say in prison. Does he stop being heterosexual? Is there precious little identifying him as heterosexual? Goodness, no.

especially since there are no genetic markers or phenotypic indicators of you being so.

Straw man alert! No one claims there is a clear-cut gene, like for blue eyes. Yet the difference in orientation remains profound, i.e., biological. The scientific action these days focuses on brain differences. They’ve discovered several.

Call me when a man can become a woman, then, with another man, successfully conceive and bear a child that is genetically and biologically both theirs.

Sure, I can choose my *behavior* regardless of my inborn orientation - just like Ms. Dixon can choose her *behavior* regardless of her inborn skin color (how she will vote, whether she will be empowered or a victim, whether she will judge others by their skin color, etc.).

The problem is, though, ILC, if you chose to behave as a heterosexual does, there would be virtually zero there identifying you as gay - especially since there are no genetic markers or phenotypic indicators of you being so.

Ms. Dixon, however, will always be clearly and visibly black.

If I were an employer and found I had Commies or Nazis or Klansmen working for me I’d fire them so fast it’d make your head spin. Yes, I would discriminate against them and be proud of it.

These are political affliations which are not protected under Title VII. In fact, communist affliation is specifically excluded.

Truth and integrity aren’t cheap, John. Sometimes you have to be a voice in the wilderness.

Indeed which is why even though I believe you are wrong I have respect for your reasoning. While it would still be a political loser for now, the beauty of your reasoning is that it does take away some of the bitterness in the Culture War.

This woman has freedom of speech. Employers have freedom of choice. No employer should be forced by law to hire people they feel uncomfortable with. That includes gay employers. If they want to fire someone for talking trash about gays, that’s fine with me.

One could choose to deny one’s attractions to the same sex, but one couldn’t choose these attractions in the first place.

I am (and long have).

I disagree with you but do respect the consistency of your reasoning. This is far better than what I hear from many on both sides. Any candidate who takes up your position on the national stage though IMO would be toast.