LogFAQs > #928638434

_AdjI_ posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Sexual orientation however is constantly changing. Today you feel like dating women but in 5 years you decide you want to date men, then years later you date both, and so on, and so on... Making it illegal to discriminate based upon your preferences opens up a can of worms when your preferences are something untoward, such as animals, objects, or children.

In this case it would appear to be mostly harmless since all this does is protect against job discrimination but as the justices are pointing out it would create legal precedence that would apply in many other areas that can see individual preferences protected when they are otherwise harmful to society as a whole.

It's not really setting a slippery slope of legal precedent to say "gay sex is okay because it's between consenting adults." Animals and children are not consenting adults, so they're not fair game, and in fact are illegal to have sex with (in which case, you're not discriminating based on their sexual preference, but on their criminal record). Objects? It's weird, but it's not hurting anybody, so there's no reason to discriminate on that basis (unless they start ****ing random objects at work, which is unsanitary and an unauthorized use of work time and therefore a justifiable reason to fire them).

You missed the point. Gay men are attracted to men sexually, no actual sex has to take place for someone to be gay, they just have to be attracted to their same sex.

Pedophiles are attracted to little kids sexually, no actual sex has to take place for someone to be a pedophile, that would make them a child molesting pedophile scumstain.

The point was that employers can currently ban people for being attracted to things they find distasteful, like men or dogs or children, so they should fire all the straight women for being attracted to icky men.