Ben, that’s a pretty pathetic complaint if that’s the only “freedom” of yours that’s threatened. Gay people similarly don’t have the “freedom” to create a hostile work enviornment by insulting religious people – its a standard we all have to live by in a just world.

Tell us Ben, if you deprive youself of the “freedom” to tell a newlywed lesbian that the happiest day of her life is “bad stuff”, just exactly how does that impact you in a negative way?
How does that change your day to day life? Does it break your leg? Does it pick your pocket? Does it mean you can’t pray whenever you feel like it? Does it mean your children can’t go to the private school of your choice?

NO. If you deprive yourself of the “right” to insult gay people it has no conceivable impact on your freedom to do anything to pursue happiness as you see fit, unless your happiness is dependent on insulting and oppressing others who do you know harm. If that’s the case you are in desperate need of psychiatric help.

The difference between bigotry and a principled position is that a principle applies to all.

If your objection to hate crimes legislation was the principled objection that it applies unequal punishment based on attitudes, beliefs, or thoughts, then that objection would apply to all hate crimes, be they based on religion, race or other attributes. Such arguments have merit and, indeed, I too have concerns along that line.

But if, however, your objection is only to the inclusion of “sodomites” under hate crimes protections, then your arguments about the criminalization of thought is only a smoke screen and your real objection is to treating hate crimes against gay people on the same level as other hate crimes. Such an argument is that anti-gay violent crime should be considered less of a crime than anti-Christian or anti-black violent crime.

That is an argument for treating one class of people unequally based solely on animus towards that class of people. That is the heart of bigotry.

From what I can tell, you object only to protections for gay people. Thus you reveal your position to not be principled, but rather bigoted.

And what’s this about me being a domestic enemy? Do you mean that I in particular am a domestic enemy? Please explain.

Asserting something does not make it true.

He harassed another employee, as a management level employee he should’ve known, and done better. There is a line between simply stating an opinion and harassment, he crossed it — in flagrant violation of their company policies.

He did not go to the police.

He did not go to the board of labor.

He didn’t go to any sort of legal department.

Nope, he went to well-known, dyed-in-the -wool, lound-n-proud anti-gay activists.

Also, get a grammar handbook because your spelling is atrocious.