Do you not get it? Do you not recognize it when you are being ignored? I told you I didn’t accept your apology.

I doubt you’d believe any answer I gave to your question about these laws. In any event, if you want questions answered you’re going to have to act like someone who deserves to have me answer his questions.

For starters you can stop questioning my sincerity based on what “you may think [I believe] based on things [I] didn’t say.”

I gave you my reason for asking my original question:

I worry about the way people’s policy desires overule something all citizens should share: a desire for constitutional governance.

You clearly do not share my concern. However, this did not give you just cause to attribute ulterior motives to me.

I had previously thought you were someone with whom I and others could engage in reasoned discussion. I must now doubt this, which is very sad.

You are a contributor to a site that wants to promote civil communication on gay issues. Remember that the next time someone asks a question, whether you’d prefer that question be asked or not.

Well, finally. You finally admit that you don’t know what my philosophy is regarding employment laws. At least that’s something — even though you can’t bring yourself to fully admit you shouldn’t have assumed my viewpoint was “whatever will serve [me] in making arguments against the rights, freedoms, and equality of gay citizens.” You only say you might’ve been wrong.

You were plenty wrong, Timothy. On 18 October, on this very website, I asked why the advertising branch chief for the Army National Guard said that GLEE.COM

I do not assume that you have either libertarian or federalist views. I was pointing out that your arguments were from this position but that I doubted that this was a position which you held consistently.

I don’t know if you have any philosophical viewpoint at all other than whatever will serve you in making arguments against the rights, freedoms, and equality of gay citizens. But perhaps I’m wrong.

I’ve been wanting to get back to you for some time. I was stopped by computer problems.

If you want to debate theories about constitutionality in general, call a buddy and go have some beers. I’m not interested.

Charming. At least you have now admitted you don’t care about the actual constitutionality of such laws, albeit in a round-about fashion.

it appears that your objections to non-discrimination employment law were discovered after they were broadened to include sexual orientation.

You, of course, haven’t the slightest evidence of this. When Jim Burroway asked people to address “what David is asking, not what you may think he believes based on things he didn’t say,” you apparently thought that the pronoun “everyone” didn’t apply to you.

If indeed this is a federalist issue, then you of course support non-discrimination laws in California…

You earlier assumed I have libertarian ideals. Now you assume that my federalist concerns must preclude such ideals. Are you trying to set some sort of trap here? (Federalist + Libertarian = Anti-Gay) Or are you just trying to make me crazy?

Actually, what I’d really like to know is just when you became so nasty.

You are not upholding Jim’s stated principles and purposes for this site when you attack me for asking a question you don’t want asked.

Lamda Legal, ACLU, and possibly the Southern Poverty Law Center are your best bets.

Contact your local Gay Community Center. They may refer you to someone that may help you. I’m not sure what state you are in but a Gay Community Center may help start the process of resolving this issue.

I’m a bit surprised that Kaiser Perm doesn’t have a non-discrimination policy when it come to harassment in the work place for gays. Or does it, and no one is enforcing it?

Blessings,

Ken R