Really, Mr. Baldwin? Name a couple and provide examples, please. Otherwise your argument is without merit.

Regards,
Peter H.

Yep, and as usual you are fourth-and-long facing the wind and with a 3-touchdown deficit in the fourth quarter.

Regards,
Peter H.

You claimed Californians passed multiple initiatives that caused “racial apartheid”; you were refuted with facts.

You changed your story to claim one “initiative” passed in “the forties or fifties”; you were refuted with facts.

You claimed MBTA was a “municipal agency”; you were refuted with facts.

You are demonstrating what a gay-sex liberal is, which is a gay person who uses their sexual orientation as a substitute for competence. You can do that in the Obama Party, but it doesn’t work well in the business or any other world. Of course, that’s why gay-sex liberals want laws like ENDA passed, so that you can force businesses to do like your Obama Party does and reward people based solely on skin color and sexual orientation.

Regardless, I’m not upset every time someone who is gay is fired; only when they’re fired for being gay.

I’ve been fired for being gay twice. I grabbed my sack and moved on to bigger and better. Didn’t wallow in self-pity nor did I harass and threaten anybody. I sure as hell never demanded that anybody like me.

So what if a lot of gay and liberal organizations opposed prop 209? I didn’t. I was talking about Prop 14. Keep it simple.

Actually, the MBTA is, and I quote, “a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision of the commonwealth, under the name of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority”.

In other words, your argument is that the state of Massachusetts is violating its own laws.

Ah, but you see, there’s more, much much more.

There are LGBT organizations in virtually every letter, but pay particular attention to G and H, where you find “Human Rights Campaign”, among others.

1) The NGLTF does not speak for every gay American, nor even every gay liberal. I haven’t said anything about laws that mandate racial preferences.

2) You haven’t referenced a single part of the MA law that promotes preferential treatment for individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The existence of one program in a municipality is insufficient; they could easily be running afoul of the MA antidiscrimination statute.

3) Please define “gay sex liberal” for us.

Initiatives, you mean.

And very simply put, gay-sex liberals like yourself demonstrated that they support preferential treatment for racial minorities and consider opposition to that to be “racist”.

Unfortunately, what was it that you claimed about “nondiscrimination” laws before?

ENDA would probably put a stop to any preferential treatment

Massachusetts HAS an “ENDA” law. Obviously it does NOT end preferential treatment, and in fact promotes and supports government programs that provide preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.

Keeping score, Peter?

Anyway, it would have been clear from the entire thread (in its original, pre-edited to suit your interests form) that I was never talking about banning preferential treatment for racial minorities. You came up with that one out of left field.

(Chuckles, reaches for popcorn.)

Regards,
Peter H.

Wrong.

The city of Minneapolis was so terrified of losing a lawsuit under the state’s ENDA statute that it refused to fire a fire chief who had nineteen sustained allegations of misconduct, INCLUDING proven cases of discrimination and retaliation against people who refused her sexual favors.

That should be a slam-dunk case. But under ENDA laws, gay-sex liberals can’t be fired because doing so is “homophobia and sexism”.

Unfortunately, what was it that you claimed about “nondiscrimination” laws before?

ENDA would probably put a stop to any preferential treatment

Massachusetts HAS an “ENDA” law. Obviously it does NOT end preferential treatment, and in fact promotes and supports government programs that provide preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.

No, you weren’t.

BTW, American Elephant, Californians also affirmed racial apartheid in initiatives.

I was referring to the passage of a popular initiative in California over half a century ago.

First you used the plural “initiatives”; then, when you were called on that, you tried to weasel your way out, getting the dates hilariously wrong as well.

Please stop repeating the lie about proposition 209. I was talking about Prop 14 from 1964, which prohibited the state from enacting housing discrimination laws. http://holmes.uchastings.edu/cgi-bin/starfinder/2359/calprop.txt

It passed by a much larger margin (more than 65%) and was later invalidated by the Supreme Court on 14th amendment grounds.

You’ll note Alec had nothing to say about how Massachusetts’s ENDA law made it possible for a gay-sex liberal incompetent to get and keep a job for which they weren’t qualified based on their LGBT status, as I cited above, or how Minnesota’s ENDA law made it possible for an individual who demanded sex from her subordinates and openly discriminated against those who wouldn’t give it to her and straight people to not only be promoted, but to completely avoid being fired because a lawsuit under Minnesota’s ENDA would restore her position.

1) The preferential treatment afforded the FTM transgender individual is rare and was not a result of Massachusetts state law, from what I can see, but a quirk of a local minority preference system. It is different from laws that protect individuals from discriminaton on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. That would be like comparing Title VII to quota programs and policies; they’re entirely different.

2) The case you cite now involved sexual harassment, not an anti-discrimination statute for sexual orientation. As with many anti-gay fanatics, you beome somewhat rabid when cornered and apparently lose your capacity to reason.

3) I’m still not sure what a “gay sex liberal” is (unless you mean a self-identified liberal who sometimes has sex with men, guilty as charged). Regardless, I’m not upset every time someone who is gay is fired; only when they’re fired for being gay.

Checkmate.

Regards,
Peter H.