California supreme court rules on gay rights

[victorcharlie]

A victory for poor behavior.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=AiW8eGqo73p8UXQo4_Dzmtas0NUE

So, now that gay marriage is legal in the peoples republic of, why not polygamy?

Heck, now that animals have rights, can I marry my dog too?

It's time to pray.......and beg forgiveness.

[Dee]

victorcharlie, if you lay down with your dog you may get up with fleas!  Sorry. It was corny but I could not resist.
As for the gays, I will stand my politically UN-CORRECT ground as the song goes (Merle Haggard & Gretchen Wilson), and say that queers marrying queers is a queer thing to do. Gay is happy and for the most part I have met very few happy queers. They are usually upset about something.
California gave us the hoola hoop in the fifties, the skate board in the 60s, the hippies in the 60s and 70s, Charles Manson, Barbara Boxer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a plethora of other bad ideas.
What else would you expect? Common sense from the "left coast"?

[30-06man]

A victory for poor behavior.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=AiW8eGqo73p8UXQo4_Dzmtas0NUE

So, now that gay marriage is legal in the peoples republic of, why not polygamy?

Heck, now that animals have rights, can I marry my dog too?

It's time to pray.......and beg forgiveness.

If you are a hard working American who doesn't care for any of the politically correct BS you have no rights so basically you can't do anything according to our government.

victorcharlie, if you lay down with your dog you may get up with fleas!  Sorry. It was corny but I could not resist.
As for the gays, I will stand my politically UN-CORRECT ground as the song goes (Merle Haggard & Gretchen Wilson), and say that queers marrying queers is a queer thing to do. Gay is happy and for the most part I have met very few happy queers. They are usually upset about something.
California gave us the hoola hoop in the fifties, the skate board in the 60s, the hippies in the 60s and 70s, Charles Manson, Barbara Boxer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a plethora of other bad ideas.
What else would you expect? Common sense from the "left coast"?

Can't agree more.

[powderman]

Those perverts want to go to hell, it's their business. They are abominations in Gods eyes, and mine. Both hillary and obama support this garbage, part of the dumcrap platform. POWDERMAN. 

[30-06man]

Gays, Illegals, Abortions and banning guns are all the democraps want. We would have more rights in China, Cuba, or Mexico if the dems get what they want.

[DalesCarpentry]

I have to say I have been a gay bashing person all my life. I do not and never agreed with that type of life style. Turns out that the gas station I go to every morning is managed by a gay man! !!!!!!!!!! I have been going there for a couple years before I ever new he was gay. That is besides the point. I ended up doing alot of work for this guy and his boyfriend. These guys have been together since about 1985. I know this because some of the walls I tore apart were that signed by both of them way back then. I would have to say if you met either of them in person you would not think they were gay. Like I said I have been a gay basher all my life but I consider these 2 guys friends. They probably have a better relationship than my wife and I do. I say to each their own. They are happy together and have never hit on me knowing I am straight as could be. I consider them friends now.  All I have to say is keep an open mind and I am willing to bet you know a gay person. Dale

[torpedoman]

  I really don't care what anyone does with their private life the key word here is private if they keep it private it is their business. yes dale i know a few gay people, the type that keep it private, most are just everyday people. Why shouldn't they enjoy the thrills of divorce, property division, alimony, support payments just like the straight world.  old adage "be careful of what you wish for."

[DalesCarpentry]

  I really don't care what anyone does with their private life the key word here is private if they keep it private it is their business. yes dale i know a few gay people, the type that keep it private, most are just everyday people. Why shouldn't they enjoy the thrills of divorce, property division, alimony, support payments just like the straight world.  old adage "be careful of what you wish for."

I have to say you made a good point there. Dale

[billy_56081]

They claim it is genetic to be gay and that they were born that way. So will the pedophile try this approach with their perversion next?

And yes I would imagine the divorce lawyers would support this, just a way to increase their business.

Nothing but a bunch of sick sodomites!

[powderman]

Those perverts can be as happy as they want, be friends to all, but thats not gonna keep them out of hell. There are not now, never have been, and never will be ANY practicing, unrepentent homosexuals in Heaven. They are a cancer in our society. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

It might seem like bad times for the straight crowd . Maybe it is a chance to strength or conviction to right vs. wrong .
good vs. evil and intelligent vs. pol correct !

[ms]

We need to pray for this country 2012 is coming fast this is not a joke.

[30-06man]

We need to pray for this country 2012 is coming fast this is not a joke.

2012 means nothing as far as I can tell. No body can prove its a fact and how am I expect what they think is going to happen in 2012 when they can't tell you if it is going to rain the next day or not.

[SHOOTALL]

Y 2 K all over !

Forget the crowd followers and grand standers that would do what ever gets attention . Consider the human born with both male and female make up , at birth their sex is chosen for them by their parents or doctor . God sent them here one way and man changed it .
Who among us has the right to judge this person or choose their path in life ?
I don't know the answer but it is the one problem that is in opposition to conventional thinking on the subject .

[muskeg13]

Ahhh...lawyers are behind this.!...Swarzie said he won't veto.  Traditionally it was always the Repub party that was partial to gay rights...

TM7:  As usual you are way off base, but this time even more than normal.  First off, there is nothing for Arnold to veto.  This was a decision of the state supreme court.  Secondly, and you may have just made a typo, traditionally it has always been the Republicans who have stood for family values and have rejected special rights for gays, unlike the Democrats.

[blackhawk45]

And GOD said, Man shall not lay with Man !!!!!!! Except in Kalifornication.

[Brithunter]

Of course 2012 is important. Heck Brown is wasting enough money on it.

It's the Olympics coming to London  Brown even lied to us about them the cost has risen at least ten fold and now they are going to waste another 25 million building shooting ranges in London that will be then torn down when the game are over. So much for the Olympic charter and ideals.

As for queers ..................................... the only good one is a dead one!

[Mikey]

Well, this may present a moral dilemma for some yet present the opportunity for 'family' values to others.  We seem to deny others what we enjoy because of what we have been taught, yet the organizations that teach us are themselves rife with aberrant behavior. 

Many of us have learned tolerance and acceptance from our parents, and others.  Some learn denial and disdain from word and teachings from those who say one thing yet do another.  It has become so bad with the church in this country the Pope had to come address it and deal with it.

Birth gender doesn't really matter, it is simply the behavior that many find objectionable. 

Will we see these people on the gun range during 'family days' - not likely but, it is quite possible you may encounter them on the range as I have. 

Some look for advice on something some relative left them - what is it, does it work, is it legal to own it in your home, can I use it to defend myself, what do I do if they start throwing rocks or bricks through my window at night; sometimes they wonder if they can even go out to the market in the evening without being assaulted and beaten (a lot like single women and the elderly, eh??)  Some will stop by the range to ask questions about gun ownership because they can't seem to get a straight answer from the sporting goods store or gun shop.  It doesn't usually take too long to suspect they aren't the normal manly bubba/good ol boy types who usually frequent the range, but yet they have honest concerns and questions. 

They may not advocate hunting and some are probably vegetable terroists but those I see out together are mostly meat eaters (no snide comments here please).  I know of only one 'COPS' episode where they caught someone abusing a vegetable, and that was a drunk with a pumpkin (caught on film by a female officer - lololol). 

A lifestyle or sexual preference may not have a darn thing to do with guns, except that gays are just as likely to want to defend themselves as we are. For all we know, gay people may look to us for example and the need to support their right to keep and bear arms and defend themselves as they are some of the more oft chosen victims of violent group behaviors.  I suppose it is human behavior to pick on those we perceive as weaker, at least until we learn there is neither good reason or value for it but some never learn and the victimization is always present.  Is it less of a crime to bash a gay person to death than it is to murder women, children or the elderly?  I don't think so but there are far too many who consider the first as 'just deserts' for 'das untermenchen' while the others are heinous crimes. 

Was this country not founded on the basis of being free to live as we please?  Well hell, if someone want to wear chemise behind closed doors then so what? Some even wear it when they are out.  So what!  What real business is it of ours?  Some may be so liberal as to be complete buttheads - but we have many of those in this land of so many freedoms, it is the result of having these freedoms. 

If you don't want to wear pink undies that is your business but you really have no business telling others they can't.  If you can't or won't lead your life through quiet example and consideration for others that is also your business but you will have to set a better example for me than gay bashing before you can expect me to accept your positions. 

I would no sooner insult a man who comes to the gun range to try out his new 45 while he is wearing a chartreuse colored set of sweats than I would another guy who is wearing heels and toreador (sp ?) pants.  I may wish to warn him about the mud near the target stands just so he doesn't break a heel and I have to watch a hissy-fit, but I sure ain't gonna insult him.  I might advise him to wear combat boots and leave his shoes in the car.......... And by the same token I am sure not going to make a sexist comment to a pretty gal wearing a mini-skirt and halter top while she is trying out her new 38........I may advise her to wear something with more pockets so she can carry more ammo but I'm sure not gonna go anywhere else. 

There is incredibly hypocrisy in this country, and everywhere.  The best we can do is lead by proper example and bashing others for what we want doesn't quite get it...  JMTCW.  Mikey.

[powderman]

The first chapter of Romans, verses 26,27,28 pretty well say it all. There are many other references to these perverts in the Bible as well. POWDERMAN. 

[crustaceous]

If there is one thing I can't stand is these liberal panty waist pseudo christians who pick and chose which biblical rules on sexuality they're going to follow. I say it's all or nothing. Including but not limited to:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21- If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22- If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12- Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19- The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27- If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12-If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I've got my rock pile ready!

[DalesCarpentry]

If there is one thing I can't stand is these liberal panty waist pseudo christians who pick and chose which biblical rules on sexuality they're going to follow. I say it's all or nothing. Including but not limited to:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21- If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22- If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12- Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19- The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27- If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12-If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I've got my rock pile ready!

WOW!!!!!!!!!!! There's  a bunch of laws I was never aware of. As far as your bride being a virgin. Come on now. I would bet 80% of our wives were not virgins the night of our wedding. As for having sex on their period. I agree. I don't like it but it has started a couple times while we were in the act. Does this mean we should both be stoned to death? Dale

[tallyho]

To quote Mikey above: "Was this country not founded on the basis of being free to live as we please?  Well hell, if someone want to wear chemise behind closed doors then so what? Some even wear it when they are out.  So what!  What real business is it of ours?  Some may be so liberal as to be complete buttheads - but we have many of those in this land of so many freedoms, it is the result of having these freedoms. "

If there is to be actual freedom then some people are free to be offended by other people. And some are free to be offensive. I wouldn't have it any other way!

Most of us on this forum are very offensive to gun-haters, to bunny-huggers, to greenies and other types of "liberals". And they are trying (freely) to stop us from (freely) living and acting our choices. We claim that it is our right to do so, and they claim it is their right to stop us. Both sides are exercising their rights. If you substitute "gays" for "gun-owners" in any kind of political discussion, I say we have more in common on a political and freedom basis than there are differences.

Although I don't believe it is illegal (yet) for gun-owners to marry, the way some radical gun-banners act, it wouldn't surprise me, that if/when they ever get into power, that kind of law will show up. (It would be entertaining should that actually come about, for them to try to break up my marriage - they would not likely come out unscathed if they tried to mess with my pistol-packin' wife!  )

And surprise, I have some gay friends. Both tried being married (to the other gender) and it didn't work out too well. How many of us "straight" types have found it didn't work very well, or isn't currently working very well? (Rhetorical question - no need to answer.)

Regarding just one particular couple, one of them has a very responsible position in a defense industry (you know,  an industry that helps defend the USA) the other is an entrepreneur, that is an activity that employs, others, pays taxes, expands and aids the economy of the USA. Real couple of losers huh (not!). (I just realized as I was typing this, that in another couple I know, one more works for another defense industry as well! - oh no, gays helping defend the USA!)

They have been to the range with my wife and I and they loved it. Within a couple of weeks they had joined SASS, attended a couple of SASS events including End of Trail, and now they talk up gun-ownership among their "gay and lesbian" friends. Just think about that, a couple of "them" talking kindly about, and supporting "us". They actually spend time introducing concepts readers of this site take as a core values - the right to own guns, the right of self-defense, and the right to be treated as responsible citizens. Why do some of us find it so hard to reciprocate?

And I must say to DALESCARPENTRY, Good on ya Dale. You demonstrate the ability and willingness to open your mind and thoughts and respond to what is actually in front of you. You can come to a conclusion and make a decision based on your own individual experiences rather than hold on to a dogmatic position about what what something, or someone is "supposed" to be. Something that you admit was how you were in the past. This, in my opinion is what real freedom looks like in action.

And for the position that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God; so what? Let the gays and God work it out when and if necessary. It ain't my business, nor is it yours. If God made the rules, then any penalty is up to God, like any other choices made by individuals. If they are destined for hell, what business is it of yours. I wonder why, those of you who hate the gays, aren't actually happy that they are going to hell. Ain't it what they deserve if they don't repent? Why not be joyful rather than angry?

I find it hard to believe that God is so wimpy that he can't handle stuff without your, or my, help. When a human entity gets involved in the business of the almighty, it starts to sound more like a Radical Islamists way (I must punish sinners for Allah) than a loving Christian approach.

It seems to me, from what I've read, that Allah is kinda lazy about many things, what with leaving so many decisions and stuff up to the mullahs and ayatollas and political leaders. He doesn't seem to spend much time actually one-on-one with individual muslims. I could be wrong, but I always thought that was the main difference between Protestant Christians and other religions; that each one of us is encouraged to connect individually with God and not have "interpretations" or "instructions" filtered through priests and other "officials". Ain't there something along the lines of "I accept Jesus as my personal savior? Something about each of us being responsible for our own thoughts and deeds? If I am wrong, and this ain't the basis for Christian thought, then I won't be calling myself a Christian.

And judging by what crustaceous posted while I was typing the above:

If there is one thing I can't stand is these liberal panty waist pseudo christians who pick and chose which biblical rules on sexuality they're going to follow. I say it's all or nothing. Including but not limited to:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21- If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22- If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12- Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19- The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27- If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12-If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I've got my rock pile ready!

I guess it is a moot point whether I call myself a Christian or not. It seems, according to the all-or-nothing version of Christianity, I ain't one, and never again can be one due to a divorce, and remarriage. I have no brothers, so if I die (by stoning as now seems possible), who is my current but forbidden wife (previously married and therefore not a virgin) supposed to (you know - boink)     in order to provide a male heir? And even if I had brothers, and she boinked them, if a male heir ensues, is he gonna be legit, 'cuz our marriage apparently ain't? And bottom line, since my wife and I are destined to be stoned to death anyway, why bother with Christianity at all? By the way, if some big hairy dude attacks me and my wife shoots him in the family jewels, is that subject to the same penalty as grabbing him there?And would it be her gun hand that's cut off, or does it matter? What if she is ambidextrous. Would it make any difference if the guy was a predatory homo trying to get into my pants. Would protecting me from that qualify as an extenuating circumstance for her? Just wondering. 

So should any all-or-nothing Christians decide to do the wimpy God's work for him regarding me and my wife, please, bring your rock piles to the gunfight, and you might consider wearing armor on your crotch.

[Graybeard]

The truth of the matter is that if we take ALL of the Biblical prohibitions and penalties thereof seriously and apply then equitably across the board to one and all there would be a LOT of bloody rocks and darn few folks to hurl those rocks. Did you know hat 92.15% of all statistics are made up on the spot? I think the correct statistic here is that about 95% of the folks currently walking this earth would need to be put to death really swiftly to get in line with ALL the Biblical prohibitions.

Now I'm not saying that should or should not be done and kinda sorta think it's up to GOD not us mere mortal humans to go about the punishment of folks who don't please GOD and meet HIS expectations. I'm pretty sure from my reading of the Bible that the vast majority of folks will be in hell and not in Heaven and there are many many reasons why they will be heading the wrong way but mostly it's GOD's job not ours to send folks to whichever destination they are bound for.

On the subject of gays I really don't care what folks do behind closed doors between consenting adults really I don't. I do object to seeing overt acts of affection between males in public but confess that the same between females is not offensive to me. Weird? Sure I suppose so just the way my mortal mind works for whatever reason. It is very much offensive to me to see men kissing men and I generally stop watching TV shows when I see it happen on them. If it becomes a regular thing on any series no matter how much I like that show I stop watching it for that reason alone.

I have many prejudices and admit to them and admit that not all are good or perhaps I should say politically correct. It pisses me to a fair thee well to see mixed race couples as to me that's just not right but that's my personal problem to deal with and I'm not out to stone any of them to death over it but it is personally offensive to me just the same. I am very much a product of my up bringing and many of my prejudices were developed in the days of my youth based on what was then acceptable or unacceptable and I guess I'm just too old a dog to learn new habits.

I don't suggest or recommend any violent actions against folks just cuz I don't like them or approve of their behavior. It's their behavior and their problem to deal with should after death GOD decides they really really shouldn't have been the way they were. I figure eventually HE will sort it all out to HIS satisfaction and ain't likely to ask me for my opinion on it. So I'll just hobble on thru life the way I am and try to look the other way as much as I can when I see things offensive to my sensibilities and trust that others will do the same for anything I do offensive to them and I'm sure I do some things offensive to someone every day.

Heck just being a gun owner and a meat and taters kinda guy is offensive to millions I'm sure. Tuff.

[nomosendero]

If there is one thing I can't stand is these liberal panty waist pseudo christians who pick and chose which biblical rules on sexuality they're going to follow. I say it's all or nothing. Including but not limited to:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21- If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22- If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12- Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19- The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27- If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12-If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I've got my rock pile ready!

I would go along with the first part of your post, we should not pick & choose to our liking.

On the other hand, Deuteronomy has nothing to do with Christian Law, but the Law of Moses. Christ taught in the Gospels how to live & in many ways were different than taught in the Old Testament, & the Bible student would understand this & understand why. This is not a Bible forum, but I will study with anyone, away from this forum.

And your reference in Mark was false, the Sadducee was asking Jesus a question to try to "trip him up", with a hypothetical that if a brother married this widow from another brother & he died & this was done over & over again with all of the brothers, who would have her in the resurrection, a question that showed his not understanding the resurrection. The Sadduccee stated that MOSES wrote that the brother would be required to marry her, Jesus never said this & it is not a requirement in Christian law period, not my opinion, it just does not exist.

So, it's OK to have the rock pile ready, but we would be safe with those scriptures as they have zero application for us. Not trying to pick a fight here & I will study the Bible with anyone off of this forum.

As far as what Graybeard said, I sure agree with that, none of us are worthy of anything, but that is where God's grace cleanes the followers
of Christ.

[tallyho]

I don't suggest or recommend any violent actions against folks just cuz I don't like them or approve of their behavior. It's their behavior and their problem to deal with should after death GOD decides they really really shouldn't have been the way they were. I figure eventually HE will sort it all out to HIS satisfaction and ain't likely to ask me for my opinion on it. So I'll just hobble on thru life the way I am and try to look the other way as much as I can when I see things offensive to my sensibilities and trust that others will do the same for anything I do offensive to them and I'm sure I do some things offensive to someone every day.

Heck just being a gun owner and a meat and taters kinda guy is offensive to millions I'm sure. Tuff.

Nice summation Bill. It sure works for me! [img width= height= alt=" border="0]http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/Themes/babylon/images/post/thumbup.gif[/img] And I'm pretty sure it works for God too.

[GRIMJIM]

I agree with Bill, whatever a woman decides to do to another woman in the privacy of my own home is nobodys' business.

Seriously though I look at it this way. Whatever they are doing is really none of my business and I really don't care. Should they be doing it? In a perfect world No. But in the real world they are, so I can focus my energies on something that has nothing whatsoever to do with me, or I can go about my own business and take care of my own problems.

[deltecs]

I don't care what people consent to do in their own bedrooms or choice of sexuality.  I do care that any government sanctioning of gay marriage costs heterosexual married couples more money.  From death benefits insurance, taxes, SS, medical leave time for employers, health insurance, auto insurance, cannot testify in courts against a spouse, adoption, and a host of other benefits from marriage.  A government entity that sanctifies gays indirectly entitles them to rights not granted by the Constitution.  As an employer, I do not want gays working for me in whatever capacity.  It is my right not to hire them without government hindrance.  Call me any name, anyone chooses, but the fact remains, I do have the right to dicriminate against sexual orientation even if I am not allowed to discriminate against the sexes.  I so choose.  It is my risk and my business.  I do not want to be required to employ or not discriminate against homosexuals.  No fundamental rights exist in law that require me to do so and do not need more.

[powderman]

DELTECS, NOMOSENDERO. Good posts. POWDERMAN. 

[tallyho]

I don't care what people consent to do in their own bedrooms or choice of sexuality.  I do care that any government sanctioning of gay marriage costs heterosexual married couples more money.  From death benefits insurance, taxes, SS, medical leave time for employers, health insurance, auto insurance, cannot testify in courts against a spouse, adoption, and a host of other benefits from marriage.  A government entity that sanctifies gays indirectly entitles them to rights not granted by the Constitution.  As an employer, I do not want gays working for me in whatever capacity.  It is my right not to hire them without government hindrance.  Call me any name, anyone chooses, but the fact remains, I do have the right to dicriminate against sexual orientation even if I am not allowed to discriminate against the sexes.  I so choose.  It is my risk and my business.  I do not want to be required to employ or not discriminate against homosexuals.  No fundamental rights exist in law that require me to do so and do not need more.

You are absolutely right. And as far as I am concerned the government has no business sanctioning any kind of marriage and "giving" rights or benefits to any group. As far as I recall, the Constitution does not list the rights the government can give, but stimply tells the government which rights it cannot mess with!

And yes deltecs I agree, it absolutely should be your right to hire or not hire anyone you wish without government hindrance. Theoretically, you are able to discriminate for whatever reasons or biases you might have, gender, height, eye color, haircut, shoe size, whatever... Unfortunately in these times it has become exactly that, more of a theoretical exercise than an actual ability to stand on your rights.

[nilescoyote]

Ya know, one observation that has yet to be brought up? Homosexuality is a dieing breed....