Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The people who lost bitched about it? This is new and shocking.

 cincydooley wrote:
No. Get rid of the act entirely.

Why?

 whembly wrote:
He's responding to sirlynchmob's recent post above.

There was a post in-between. Which is why the quote function exists.

If you read the dissent over that SSM ruling, those justices makes a pretty strong case that the majority was "legislating from the bench".

Which is absolutely rich coming from CJ Roberts' majority in favor of the Government on that last ACA ruling.

Only if you believe that a typo over-rides the clear intent of the law. Which is a concept that isn't so much on shaky legal ground, as no legal ground at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection

And this is where you're wrong. The man in that situation would get protection, they're just incredibly unlikely to need it since anti-straight bigotry is virtually nonexistent outside of conservative straw man arguments.

With regards to housing issues it could result in social housing queue jumping. 'You aren't doing enough to build ethnic housing' could be replaced with 'you aren't doing enough to build housing for the LGBT community'.
Also what protection would the heterosexual couple get as an unprotected class that would require protection for others?

 Peregrine wrote:

Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some choices are permanent, others transientory. Sexuality is one of those.

So, since you're opposed to offering protection for things that aren't permanent, I'm going to assume that you're opposed to having religion be a protected class?

Religion has nothing to do with the thread.
However we are seeing with increasing frequency that religion is not a protected class, or is having any protections widely ignored, or verbally challenged with a gusto which if measured against any other group would border into the category of hatespeech.
You provide good example of this frequently..

 Orlanth wrote:

Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life.

Thats simply not true.

 Orlanth wrote:

Sexuality is one of those. Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also.

Yes, sexuality is fluid, and can change, however that does not mean it is a choice. People are not deciding they are gay because of some protection they want. They fall in love with different people.

 Orlanth wrote:

Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.

No it's not. People are not protected because of the sexuality (or because of their gender, race or religion) but because of the actions of the other party. It is quite possible for a straight person to claim homophobic discrimination if the other party discriminated because the believe they are gay.

 Orlanth wrote:

All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.

Discrimination is still a very real thing for many people. White, strait, able bodied men don't see it very often.

 Orlanth wrote:

With regards to housing issues it could result in social housing queue jumping. 'You aren't doing enough to build ethnic housing' could be replaced with 'you aren't doing enough to build housing for the LGBT community'.
Also what protection would the heterosexual couple get as an unprotected class that would require protection for others?

Is this about the idea that some people have in the UK that some people get priority on social housing lists because of race? Which is simply not true, and would be illegal in the UK. The UK has no concept of protected classes, only protected characteristics. You cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability in the UK except in very specific, limited, circumstances.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.

Yes and No. The US military was one of the first government bodies to enforce desegregation on paper, but segregation was unofficially continued until after the Korean War, and profound racism was still prevalent into the Vietnam War. Also note that the US Military was one of the only government bodies to actually enforce straight out discrimination against LGBT individuals up until DADT was suspended in 2011 (as opposed to more subtle forms of discrimination, like just not recognizing a gay marriage as a valid legal marriage).

Really, what the Military has been traditionally is ahead of the bell curve on written policy, but traditionally its policy in practice has typically been behind the rest of the American society. That said, the above mentioned proposal seems quite promising for LGBT folk.

I think it is a fair statement that the US Military is almost always ahead of the curve in civil rights. Yes desegregation took place first in the Military and yes it definitely hit a lot of bumps along the way, but at this point there is no such thing as a black or white or mexican marine their are only Amphibious Green Blurs. Any racism that still exists (Actual racism not joking) is so harshly looked down upon and punished that it would end the career of any idiots who tried. As far as LGBT, i served with a handful of lesbians and a couple of bisexuals and 1-2 gay guys, nobody cared as far as I can recall. So long as you did your job and didnt fall asleep on post you were G2G.

No.
Enough with the protected groups. People have a right to be as les.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
We're sort of in an awkward phase now where someone can get a same-sex marriage one day, and hypothetically in some locations get fired from their job, or kicked out of their apartment the next day, etc. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.

Clinton could press the issue as a campaign platform issue. It would be political gold. If most of the country supports gay marriage, the same majority would presumably support the extension of anti-discrimination protection, so she'd be able to capitalize on the crossover that exists from the gay marriage issue.

-Dude if someone doesn't want to bake your wedding cake you spread on FB and just go to a different place.
-Most states are right to work states. People can get fired for breathing. You shouldn't be a special snowflake because of who you .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?

Sure its easy. I just did.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
We're sort of in an awkward phase now where someone can get a same-sex marriage one day, and hypothetically in some locations get fired from their job, or kicked out of their apartment the next day, etc. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.

Clinton could press the issue as a campaign platform issue. It would be political gold. If most of the country supports gay marriage, the same majority would presumably support the extension of anti-discrimination protection, so she'd be able to capitalize on the crossover that exists from the gay marriage issue.

-Dude if someone doesn't want to bake your wedding cake you spread on FB and just go to a different place.
-Most states are right to work states. People can get fired for breathing. You shouldn't be a special snowflake because of who you .

For your first point, can we please dispense with the wedding cake example, maybe leave that in the Gay Marriage thread. That wedding cake example is horrible, because, as you say, you could just go to the bakery on the other street, and if you can't find a bakery to bake you a cake, it will have been a demeaning experience, but no one's going to become homeless or starve over it. I'd like to talk instead about discrimination in areas that are vital to life and livelihood (e.g. employment, housing, and healthcare -- healthcare maybe being a moot point at the moment) as opposed to access to luxuries.

For your second point, I know that "right to work" legislation exists in many states. What I am talking about is the ability to fire someone (or refuse someone housing or healthcare) on the basis of their sexuality. (I also know that proving that a person discriminated against another person on the basis of being part of a protected class would be difficult to prove in court because its easy to concoct a legit reason to fire someone, like "we don't have the money" or "this is the third time you've been 1 minute late to work"...to me that's sort of beside the point).

Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they . If you want to be treated the same, you should be subject to being treated the same.

Note under the enlightened frazzled administration, there's nothing keeping people from being fired for being breeders either.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .

So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.

People can easily be mistaken for something else as pointed out above. For some people it's easier to assume you're bent if you don't respond to their advances than think about some other reason you might not be interested in them. Girl doesn't like your dirty jokes? Lesbian. I refuse to go home with a very very drunk woman? Gay. And ofc, I've got one old male friend (straight and married) who seems very attractive to gay men for some reason.

This won't change much anyway. You've already had to come up with reasons for other groups. If you hate so much that you can't keep your mouth shut about it when dealing with the very people you hate I'd say you had it coming.

One of the more discriminated against groups over here is gypsies (or romani if you prefer), for example. Thought of as thieves, swindlers and hot tempered knifemen they are at times turned away from businesses and bars. But it's usually good if you can make a case that it wasn't because of who they are but something else.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .

So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.

You're right. And?

I just realized, on the off chance there isn't an app already, an app is needed for gay friendly businesses. I'd bet good money there's one already. You could list pretty much all of Austin. Its my understanding wedding related business is booming. Did you see The "First Annual Big Gay Wedding" at the Texas capital on July 4? Hundreds of people. Now thats a way to celebrate Independence Day.

Hopefully they had it in front of the Twin Sisters (two civil war era cannon) that would be cool.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/photos/austins-big-gay-wedding/

Not being familiar with US Law, are these acts distinct from legislation that gives rise to "hate crimes" against protected groups?

Yes-I think thats the intent of the OP. There's also state and local law (Houston has similar laws IIRC).

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life.

Thats simply not true.

Blanket statement. There is enough evidence, as in masses of case histories where people have had a lesbian partners than gone straight, or the other way around. there is even a phrase hasbian or wasbian to accommodate the phenomena. Similar histories apply to males also.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Yes, sexuality is fluid, and can change, however that does not mean it is a choice. People are not deciding they are gay because of some protection they want. They fall in love with different people.

Love is a choice, preference has a lot to do with it. Hence the term preference which implies choice from the beginning. If love had no choices rape would not be a crime, in some societies it effectively isn't, those societies follow your mantra closer than ours do.
The very nature that sexuality is fluid indicates choice, or at least I hope you realise this, were you to espouse that sexuality was malleable but choice didn't come into it then you are condemning humanity as a very savage race indeed.
Yes some people feel they have no choice over their sexuality, society has long found prisons and asylums fit places for them.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.

No it's not. People are not protected because of the sexuality (or because of their gender, race or religion) but because of the actions of the other party. It is quite possible for a straight person to claim homophobic discrimination if the other party discriminated because the believe they are gay.

You misunderstand, choosing a partner of the same gender enables protection. Persecution can come for any angle, but the protection is uneven.
Say someone didn't like you are discriminated against you, the discrimination might have nothing to do with your sexuality, but if you have a girlfriend you have no protection, if you have a boyfriend you can scream that you are being gaybashed and have as much protection as your lawyers can prize out.
Society has enough problems having to walk on egg shells around protected persons, and the discrimination drum is not always what it is, to add another set of arbitrary criteria to this.
The law has to provide cover for all. Gender and racial discrimination does cover this to some degree, while harder to claim in anti-male sexism and anti-white racism is technically covered. LGBT protection however would need to be extended to cover heterosexuals to achieve fairness and equity in legal standing, and thast is not what the threat purports to.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.

Discrimination is still a very real thing for many people. White, strait, able bodied men don't see it very often.

You would be surprised.

 Steve steveson wrote:

Is this about the idea that some people have in the UK that some people get priority on social housing lists because of race? Which is simply not true, and would be illegal in the UK.

For a start it is very true, less so of late, but certainly true.
Some whole housing estates were 'targeted' for certain minority groups for social housing, and not in proportion to their numbers.
I know this for a flat fact because I live in one, or more accurately what was intended to become one, but the project was exposed to the press and equal opportunities had to be implemented.
Also, and from experience as a homeless worker, being white male puts you at the bottom of the queue for housing.
That is the hard reality. Reasons for this vary, In Bradford it was because a large number of persons from an ethnic minority group had positions of power in the local council and fast tracked procedures for their own kind. It was bad enough even the BBC Radio 2 made comment on it, in 2008, which was surprising as this was under New Labour time and such events were whitewashed.
You can go to London and see whole purpose built housing estates with arches with inscriptions in Urdu, because the local council built the entire estate especially for the Indian community. Some of this is well meaning, though that is being generous as those in the local housing sector ought to know that the pressure for social housing is a burden on everyone and building housing targeted at minority groups inherently discriminates against the rest.
In many cases ethnically engineering social housing is a means of changing local political demographics. With individuals vary voting block statistics for ethnicities have reliable results, so if an estate is made for minority housing in a contested ward it can shift the voter demographics of the ward to a more desired position. This is strongly suggested to be the motive for making the whole estate I live in initially Asian only.
anyway that is what happens in the UK, but I didn't actually mean all that as I don't know if that occurs in the US.

What I do know occurs in both the US and UK is lobbying for statistical allocation of social housing. Which for brevity is along the lines of the are x% of our community group in this state, so we must have at least x% of social housing allocated for our people. There are three troubles with this, first no lobby group complains if their community is overrepresented, second advocacy is available on a partisan basis and third there is a fear on housing providers to go the extra mile to prove they are inclusive. With a limited housing stock and multiple pressure groups something has to give, and that is from the community group with the least empowerment. That ultimately means white males, in a possible near future white heterosexual males.
Contrary to believe being a white male is not a success pass of itself, and many white males, especially those in need of social housing are not empowered and due to their white maleness have no advocacy group to ensure equality for them.

 Steve steveson wrote:

The UK has no concept of protected classes, only protected characteristics. You cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability in the UK except in very specific, limited, circumstances.

This is true and it is a better system, as sexuality is protected this includes heterosexuals by default. Which is a reason why social housing target allocation for homosexuals is not an issue, and any gay lobby, and there are a few would not be able to effectively get teeth into the idea of priority allocation, and to give credit to them have not to my knowledge even tried.
However specific LGBT protection opens up that can of worms.

Implying that the other side of an argument is championing rape, paedophilia and the like is definitely not okay, no matter how you go about implying that. It is rude, and further action belittling one side of the argument like this may require moderation action.

This thread has the potential to provide interesting discussion,let's do our best.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .

So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.

You're right. And?

My only point was that I'm not proposing that the CRA and FHA be amended to provide protections to people based on who they , but rather based on sexual orientation.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .

So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.

You're right. And?

My only point was that I'm not proposing that the CRA and FHA be amended to provide protections to people based on who they , but rather based on sexual orientation.

How on earth would you go about identifying that? Would Caitlyn Jenner have been protected for his entire life, or just once the individual began transitioning? Once he has, would his ex-wife be considered a lesbian since she had been married to a woman?

Identifying race is hard enough-but at least you can pull out an ancestry chart and confirm that yes, they contain enough blood of the protected class to be protected. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against- but is an unenforcable law the best way to provide protection?

 Gitzbitah wrote:


How on earth would you go about identifying that? Would Caitlyn Jenner have been protected for his entire life, or just once the individual began transitioning? Once he has, would his ex-wife be considered a lesbian since she had been married to a woman?

Presumably by the same means members of other protected groups do: by providing sufficient evidence that the individual was discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

Also, individual races are not protected by the CRA or the FHA. They both just state that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?

Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.

 Polonius wrote:
Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?

Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.

Bigots are like rules lawyers, so probably just safe to be sure

 Polonius wrote:
Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?

Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.

I think there has been some arguments in local EEOC offices putting forth that argument actually.

how about we just make a blanket law that says you cant discriminate...Or don't we already have that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?

Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.

I think there has been some arguments in local EEOC offices putting forth that argument actually.

I think the answer from a generation ago would have been that mental illness is not protected. The answer five years ago would have been "that's just icky and weird."

I think medicine and science are pointin in the direction that transsexuality is a gender/sex mismatch, and thus just as protected. It'd probably take some litigation, but I imagine the courts will rule that way. Narrowly, so as to avoid every crazy scenario of a person claiming differen gender status, but if the law prohibits me from making hiring or rental decisions based on if the applicant is a man or woman, should it matter if they were always a man or woman?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
how about we just make a blanket law that says you cant discriminate...Or don't we already have that.

Well, certain types of discrimation are reasonable, for example discrimination on the basis of work experience or job qualifications , ability to pay for services, etc.

I think the issue now is that by the time you've explained what LGBTUOIROPPYOUKNOWYOUNDMEMOUSE is everyeon has either fallen asleep, or lapsed into a coma.

I know when the daughter does it, I've literally forgotten what we were talking about before she finishes.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
how about we just make a blanket law that says you cant discriminate...Or don't we already have that.

You can discriminate, you just can't discriminate for specific reasons. As you'd imagine, anti-discrimination laws are more generally used a tool by those legitimately denied/fired/etc, than actually used by the victims of discrimination. Very people are openly discriminatory any more, so proving the cases are difficult. Of course, defending the cases are also difficult.

Absolutely not.

The Civil Rights Act is outdated anyway and likely, you'd better be off with a blanket no discrimination ruling. Until this point, however...absolutely not.

The CRA was introduced having major oppression instruments in mind, e.g. apartheid. There simply isn't anything close to that in regards to Homo- / Bisexuals. There most certainly is discrimination towards them, but a lot of it works on a level the state cannot influence anyway, e.g. employment (unless you do it wrong). Just add the fact that it's impossible to even get a ruling given there was such an inclusion. How do you objectively determine whether someone is gay or not? Anyone could make that claim. Ask people to make out in front of a crowed? Hell, if my current job was up for debate, I'd totally make out with another man if that gave me the job.

There's no basis for such an inclusion and you couldn't even objectively make a decision (for the most part) on whether someone would be in benefit of those laws or not.

Denied.

 Polonius wrote:
Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?

They are. Everyone claiming to be "transsexual" has a sex, whether they want or not. They are thus protected by the CRA just as well as anyone else.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?

cincdooley already id defend excluding everyone as a protected class (gays included I would assume), which did not surprise me at all.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?

Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life. A number of people choose partners outside their orientation for one reason or another or change their orientation.
However what you are proposing means that protection is given based on the gender of ones partner. So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection, later moves in with a man and gets protection. That sounds like discrimination to me. Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some statuses are permanent, others potentially transientory choices. Sexuality is one of those.
Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also. Part of the reason why classification is left to self identification. You also can't tell someone that because they switched partner genders this makes them classified as bisexual for life, they may have switched states between homosexual to heterosexual or vice versa. Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.

All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.

And here we have a typical confusion between behavior, which is a choice, and between the ATTRACTION, which is not a choice.

Someone who is more toward the Homosexual side of the spectrum might "choose" to marry a woman, but this is not going to affect at all the biological drive they are going to have to be aroused sexually by males.

It is times like these that I love having studied both biology and cognitive science.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?

Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.

I think there has been some arguments in local EEOC offices putting forth that argument actually.

I think the answer from a generation ago would have been that mental illness is not protected. The answer five years ago would have been "that's just icky and weird."

I think medicine and science are pointin in the direction that transsexuality is a gender/sex mismatch, and thus just as protected. It'd probably take some litigation, but I imagine the courts will rule that way. Narrowly, so as to avoid every crazy scenario of a person claiming differen gender status, but if the law prohibits me from making hiring or rental decisions based on if the applicant is a man or woman, should it matter if they were always a man or woman?

Specifically, Gender dysphoria is a combination of epigenetic keys and factors (as in the biological definition of "Factor:" being a protein or mediating hormone that facilitates certain cellular behaviors) that create a brain that is a different sex/gender than the body.

So, a Male-female gender dysphoric would be a person with a male body, but a female brain. And a Female-male gender dysphoric would be a female body, with the brain of a male (technically the gender abnormality extends beyond just their brain - and there are other complicating factors to the mix, but that is essentially the basics).

To complicate matters even further, we have Homosexual Gender dysphorics, where you have a male-female who is attracted to women, and a female-male who is attracted to men.

This can create the very confusing situation where they appear to be perfectly "normal" because they are having what appears to be a normal relationship.

But really what they wish to have is a female-female, or male-male relationship, rather than the male-female, or female-male relationships they have prior to transition.

MB

 motyak wrote:
Implying that the other side of an argument is championing rape, paedophilia and the like is definitely not okay, no matter how you go about implying that. It is rude, and further action belittling one side of the argument like this may require moderation action.

This thread has the potential to provide interesting discussion,let's do our best.

Wind your neck in, that was not what was said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?

Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life. A number of people choose partners outside their orientation for one reason or another or change their orientation.
However what you are proposing means that protection is given based on the gender of ones partner. So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection, later moves in with a man and gets protection. That sounds like discrimination to me. Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some statuses are permanent, others potentially transientory choices. Sexuality is one of those.
Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also. Part of the reason why classification is left to self identification. You also can't tell someone that because they switched partner genders this makes them classified as bisexual for life, they may have switched states between homosexual to heterosexual or vice versa. Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.

All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.

And here we have a typical confusion between behavior, which is a choice, and between the ATTRACTION, which is not a choice.
Someone who is more toward the Homosexual side of the spectrum might "choose" to marry a woman, but this is not going to affect at all the biological drive they are going to have to be aroused sexually by males.
It is times like these that I love having studied both biology and cognitive science.

MB

Ok, you miss the point big time. The source of the motive to choose a pertner of a different gender than previous partner choice is not relevant, the relevant fact is that it happens. People switch from gay to straight or vice versa. However if currently in a gay relationship and seeking housing then specific LGBT protection for the Fair Housing Act will provide rights that the same individual will not gain if they switch and choose an opposite sex partner.
Thus their rights are independent of their choices.

As for attraction, that isn't relevant either, when considering a live in sexual partner attraction might be the sole concern, but a large number of people are attracted to people they choose under better judgement not to live with. Long or short term partner choices are part chemical/pheromonal/hormonal but also part rational. After all how many people have the hots for someone, and say they could get them, but marry or partner someone else for better prospects. Others cant seperate from base attraction and if it all goes well live in bliss, but sometimes it wont; a good example being the battered partner who is clearly joined by attraction and co-habiting but if enabled to have better judgement would leave, and in many cases eventually do so. People also partner up, even marry for purely economic or even legal reasons. People co-habit or marry for green cards, citizenship or immigration benefits, money etc in sufficient numbers that it is pointless to place all co-habitation partnerhips as caused by attraction. Their gender preference is not connected to the phenomenon itself, only to their personal circumstances, so a gay person might charitably marry a mail order bride who wants to get a fast track to citizenship as much as a straight person could.

Peoples choice or partners is usually love based, and hopefully anyone who chose a partner will know them to some degree, but even that is not always a given, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience and plain just living together to save money and ending up having sex all happen.

The base dynamic however is not altered. Protected class status would give additional rights based on circumstances based on the partners being of same gender rather than opposite. LGBT people deserve provision in fair housing, but only at the same level heterosexuals do, no more, no less.