In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms." However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government." No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive. This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.
Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic. It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs. Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.
I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level. Would it be "fair?" Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.
Similar is with "gay rights." If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.
So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day. Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations. They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others. Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.
*I'll throw this little disclaimer in: I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle. Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic. Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*
MODU, while I respect your opinion (it was presented far more "logically" than the starter of this thread in terms of minorities in general), there are a few problems...
1) The "keep govt out of the bedroom" idea was a Republican idea! What happened? The religious right happened.
2) You make a MASSIVE leap that since there is no
proof that being gay is genetic it must be a choice. For one thing, there have been some bits and pieces of evidence
suggesting that it
might be genetic... or partially so. For another thing, genetic science is in its infancy. Just because something has not been
proven to be genetic it is
not safe to assume it is
not genetic. As a result, there is, likewise, no
proof that being gay is a choice.
3) Even if it is a choice, you make a very
correct leap to compare it to religion. Here's my problem... I, too, don't care to get off on some major discussion about being gay. My point was regarding simple job protection. Not entitlements or "special" rights or anything else.
If being gay is a choice, the religion parallel is superbly correct... especially since most opposition to homosexuality comes out of religion. Well..... it
IS illegal to fire someone on the basis of religion! The precisely same treatment should be afforded to sexual orientation. The Republicans, in general, oppose this.
That was my point. I'm not trying to argue for or against gay marriage, civil unions, genetics versus choice, etc, etc, etc. I'm simply talking about job protection. Religion, a choice, is protected. Sexual orientation should be as well. Period. As for "checking it at the door", that is WAY, OVERLY simplistic. People (co-workers, bosses, etc)
CAN find out by accident... in or out of the workplace. That's why there
is legal protection based on religion and
needs to be based on sexual orientation. Your parallel is an excellent one. Problem is, there
is protection for one of the groups, but
not for the other. And Republicans solely have blocked that protection.