Yeah, I' m sure it still happens, but that doesn' t mean that it' s legal.

If the affected individual wanted to, they could sue their ex-employer and win.

The law that covers non-discrimination of sexual orientation is a federal law, not local one. Violators will be up against the feds and the gay rights organizations.

And that is not a good place to be...

As for beatings of gay people...that' s a civil and/or criminal issue that can be resolved by the ' beaten' individual, the gay rights organization, and the ' defendant(s).

Also, not a good place to be...

It can' t be resolved if the " beaten" individual is dead or fears retaliation! Why did you put " beaten" in quotes anyway?

Yes, it is legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation in at least 36 states.
Extra long URL

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n091096a.aspx

http://www.acluohio.org/issues/lgbt/lgbt_rights.htm

http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/Organizations/Openforbusiness/NCODFAQ.htm

The states that seem to protect people' s sexual orientation are:
Hawaii, California, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Following Louisiana and Missouri, the proposed amendments passed easily in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah. Only in Oregon was there a contest, but in the end, the measure won there too. So, America is still paying attention to the importance of moral values. Based on exit polls, moral value was the top issue among voters.

Haha...I guess all of you are sad about this, that is why no replies have been posted in response to the news. That would be Joe, and Daroosh, and the person who posted " whatever floats your boat" , and some more of you .

I haven' t even been paying attention to this thread, it took you bumping it up again to fish for responses for me to notice. Like I said before, I think marraige is a church thing, so technically gay marraige should not even be possible. But gay couples should be able to apply for some sort of government recognized " union" and get the same rights. And it should be hella hard to break that union, just like getting a divorce. That way gays wouldn' t rush to get a " union" because it was the new fad or something retarded like that.

I wanna get this clarified. " Like I said before, I think marraige is a church thing, so technically gay marraige should not even be possible." As a Christian, I believe the first marriage was between Adam and Eve. If I am a secularist, even if I don' t believe in Adam and Eve, I would still believe the first mariage was heterosexual. So, to all you secularists and secularist views out there, marriage technically did not start out as a " church thing" , did it? If it didn' t start as a " church thing" , then it must be a " natural" thing, right? I know all you opponents out there will somehow find a flaw in my argument.

Wanting to be together for the rest of your life with that special someone is natural, but the concept of marriage is not. It is a man-made idea (or in the fundamentalist' s view, a God-made idea). It is just something that recognizes that union.

It sounds like you are TRYING to argue. Why? Who cares? This doesn' t impact me. The only thing I will argue is for the right of homos to be homos, and they should be allowed to have " unions" and get the same rights as married folk.