The response was generalized, not specific to the "gay" issue. It was in response to post #107 "Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups." If that makes me a "dolt" for entering the conversation, then you do have a gay issue problem.

Perceived inequities in equal rights by gays are fictitious and not related to civil rights. Gays have always enjoyed the same equal rights as normal folks. The only issue that has been distorted is over gay marriage. And marriage should never have been a gov issue, when marriage has ALWAYS been religious in nature. And I do not know of any religion that supports gay marriage in it's doctrine. I do not know all the religions, but most American supported religious faiths tolerate but do not condone or support gay marriage. Most Americans do NOT condone homosexual deviancy but tolerate it, unless forced to have it shoved into their faces, an example being that ridiculous gay pride parade comedy which makes homosexuals look like clowns and not to be taken seriously.

Gays DO receive special consideration, when in truth their practice is deviant in nature and morality. One example of special consideration is the "hate crime" laws. A person can be assaulted, but if he is either gay or black, it's considered to be a "hate crime." Assault is an assault and motive does not make it more of an assault or less of an assault. For normals it's just an assault, but a minority or gay it's considered a special case deeming a special dispensation.

The majority of America tolerates gay behavior as an unwelcome psychological flaw that is harmless if kept between two of like mind and kept private, like ALL sexuality should be. Religious faiths do NOT condone homosexuality and do not appreciate forced acceptance to legitimatize what they consider a sinful nature. But, most faiths also take the approach of "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Do not confuse tolerance with acceptance, because most states have voted against gay marriage in the past. Many have allowed civil unions though.

Libertarians believe that private business owners should be allowed the freedom to serve those of their choosing. Libertarians may not believe in discrimination but they also believe that it is an individual's right discriminate if they wish in their own privately owned business. Justifying it only in that it is privately owned and not a gov entity.

Personally, I believe that if I open a business to the public then if they ask for a product that I am selling, I should sell it to them. But, if they ask me to provide a service that is against my faith or belief, I should have the prerogative to decline. Example: If I sell cakes then I should sell to anyone entering my establishment. If I provide a catering service, then I should be able to decline service if it encompasses a perceived condoning of something adverse to my faith. If I am requested to provide a cake that indicates something that I deem despicable or deviant in nature, then I should be able to civilly decline. I see no problem with that. By catering to a gay wedding, then that could lead to the perception of condoning what Christians consider a sinful practice. Gays wish for acceptance, but they do not accept those of Christian faith. It appears that there is a one way track on acceptance. Forced compliance is not going to gain acceptance.

In my opinion, forcing acceptance on the moral majority is like pulling the tail of a sleeping tiger. It's best to leave it alone and move on.