Wyoming's proposed anti-LGBT law

[EvilCat Breath]

Has a gay person, yet, complained that they went into a bakery and had to leave with no cookies?

 

[Rustic]

That's it exactly, Marty, local elities can't block civil rights.

Period.

So, if the WY lege passes it and the Gov signs it, the legislation then goes to federal court and will be overturned.

Waste of the taxpayers' money.

Depends on the Court.

Still the fault of the LGBT progressive extremists who feel the need to force their views on others.

No one is forcing their views on anyone, the LGBT community just wants the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

From a friend in Wyoming:

The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.

HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!

Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.

Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]

Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]

Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]

Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]

Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]

Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]

Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]

Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]

Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]

This is what you get when you use courts to force gay marriage on places that don't want it, and force non-essential businesses to either "bake or die".

When your side becomes unreasonable, don't be surprised when the other side does the exact same thing.

Since when is the LBGT community not entitled to the same rights and protections as any other American

They may be entitled to it, but their rights do not automatically outweigh the rights of others, as in a right of a baker to not participate in a ceremony it finds sinful.

That is outright discrimination. Its not about sinful and has nothing to do with that, its all about discrimination

They want to force their views on everybody and control everybody… Shit for brains

 

[brummelben]

That's it exactly, Marty, local elities can't block civil rights.

Period.

So, if the WY lege passes it and the Gov signs it, the legislation then goes to federal court and will be overturned.

Waste of the taxpayers' money.

Depends on the Court.

Still the fault of the LGBT progressive extremists who feel the need to force their views on others.

No one is forcing their views on anyone, the LGBT community just wants the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

From a friend in Wyoming:

The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.

HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!

Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.

Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]

Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]

Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]

Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]

Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]

Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]

Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]

Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]

Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]

This is what you get when you use courts to force gay marriage on places that don't want it, and force non-essential businesses to either "bake or die".

When your side becomes unreasonable, don't be surprised when the other side does the exact same thing.

Since when is the LBGT community not entitled to the same rights and protections as any other American

They may be entitled to it, but their rights do not automatically outweigh the rights of others, as in a right of a baker to not participate in a ceremony it finds sinful.

That is outright discrimination. Its not about sinful and has nothing to do with that, its all about discrimination

They want to force their views on everybody and control everybody… Shit for brains

As you tried to do during the Obama years. Forget already?

 

[Seawytch]

It is FEDERAL law that requires the gay to serve the Christian in all 50 states. Funny that nobody is going after that law....

Maybe because most Christians wouldn't want to force someone who doesn't want to do a specific, non-essential and timely task?

Or Gays can create their own religion and make one of its tenets that Christianity is sinful.

Really? So why the Federal protection for Christians? Your response doesn't really answer my question at all.

How many gay people have been ruined for not selling to Christians?

Gays not violating Federal law is still not an answer to the question.

As long as the gay has to serve the Christian by law...

Get rid of Federal law first you "states rights" pussies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's it exactly, Marty, local elities can't block civil rights.

Period.

So, if the WY lege passes it and the Gov signs it, the legislation then goes to federal court and will be overturned.

Waste of the taxpayers' money.

Depends on the Court.

Still the fault of the LGBT progressive extremists who feel the need to force their views on others.

No one is forcing their views on anyone, the LGBT community just wants the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

From a friend in Wyoming:

The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.

HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!

Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.

Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]

Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]

Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]

Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]

Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]

Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]

Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]

Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]

Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]

This is what you get when you use courts to force gay marriage on places that don't want it, and force non-essential businesses to either "bake or die".

When your side becomes unreasonable, don't be surprised when the other side does the exact same thing.

Since when is the LBGT community not entitled to the same rights and protections as any other American

They may be entitled to it, but their rights do not automatically outweigh the rights of others, as in a right of a baker to not participate in a ceremony it finds sinful.

That is outright discrimination. Its not about sinful and has nothing to do with that, its all about discrimination

They want to force their views on everybody and control everybody… Shit for brains

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

 

[Silhouette]

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?

No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post

In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.

 

[Silhouette]

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?

No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post

In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.

Then you understand that LGBT is about behaviors and not a static thing like race or gender...right? And this was the premise upon which Hivey v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) was decided...

Religion, also about behaviors, is specifically protected under the Constitution, clearly, unambiguously and directly referenced. A random, growing, incomplete assembly of organized deviant sex behaviors hoping to be "a distinct class" *ahem* are not even remotely insinuated for protections in the Constitution. Why? Because Constitutionally-unmentioned behaviors that have no outer boundaries on membership (because if they did they would be discriminating) are under the regulation of the states.

Pay attention to the underlined sentence above. Because you will see it in one form or another when Obergefell's conclusions are overturned... Either LGBTQ...?????? is a religion or it is regulated by the states. Compulsive addictive behaviors don't have Constitutional protection. Because if one or three of them do, then all possible ones in the human spectrum do too...You understand precedent, right? I can guarantee you that objective and competent non-activist judges understand what precedent means and how it binds their hands in the future.

 

[pinqy]

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?

First, why would it matter if the graphic designers were gay or not? Many heterosexuals would also find the message one they would not want to support.
Second..what are the existing rules, formal or informal, the graphic designers have used in the past?
If they have established rules and the proposed language does NOT violate those rules, then it could be considered discrimination against Christians.
If the proposed language DOES violate the rules, implicit or explicit, then the designers are protected and not discrimination.
If there are no rules, then it becomes a question of what they have done in the past. Given that the objections are context based, the designers would most likely not be found discriminatory.

 

[pinqy]

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?

No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post

In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.

Then you understand that LGBT is about behaviors and not a static thing like race or gender...right? And this was the premise upon which Hivey v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) was decided...

Hively v Ivy Tech has been review by the entire court, so it's not settled yet.
But mostly, your analysis is waaaay off. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
The ruling by the 3-judge panel was that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 did not protect GLBT in general. That non-conformity to gender stereotypes does fall under the prohibition against sex discrimination (fired for acting too butch or too feminine), but that that's not the case is here. The ruling was that Ms. Hively was discriminated against, but it wasn't illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

Sounds like the religious right and the Republican bigots who are kissing their ass.

So you support Christians being able to force gay graphic designers to print giant billboards for busy highways that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", right?

No! and tis is why A Tale of Two Cakes: The Real Truth About Colorado's Cake Wars | The Huffington Post

In any case we are talking about "forcing beliefs" as though that were possible. No speech or behavior.

Then you understand that LGBT is about behaviors and not a static thing like race or gender...right? And this was the premise upon which Hivey v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) was decided...

Religion, also about behaviors, is specifically protected under the Constitution, clearly, unambiguously and directly referenced. A random, growing, incomplete assembly of organized deviant sex behaviors hoping to be "a distinct class" *ahem* are not even remotely insinuated for protections in the Constitution. Why? Because Constitutionally-unmentioned behaviors that have no outer boundaries on membership (because if they did they would be discriminating) are under the regulation of the states.

Pay attention to the underlined sentence above. Because you will see it in one form or another when Obergefell's conclusions are overturned... Either LGBTQ...?????? is a religion or it is regulated by the states. Compulsive addictive behaviors don't have Constitutional protection. Because if one or three of them do, then all possible ones in the human spectrum do too...You understand precedent, right? I can guarantee you that objective and competent non-activist judges understand what precedent means and how it binds their hands in the future.

Hively v Ivy Tech has been review by the entire court, so it's not settled yet.
But mostly, your analysis is waaaay off. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
The ruling by the 3-judge panel was that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 did not protect GLBT in general. That non-conformity to gender stereotypes does fall under the prohibition against sex discrimination (fired for acting too butch or too feminine), but that that's not the case is here. The ruling was that Ms. Hively was discriminated against, but it wasn't illegal.

Why doesn't the 1964 Civil Rights Act cover/insinuate/anticipate coverage of the addictive deviant sex behaviors "GLBT"? Neither the Constitution nor the Act have protections for non-conformity behaviors. That's up to states to regulate. The reason Hively was discriminated against is because employers have certain decorum to maintain. I believe she was trying to be a lesbian in the sports complex of the school...which meant direct access to naked girls in the locker room and showers. Naked girls, to which she is sexually oriented. Ivy Tech would have been equally appropriate in denying employment to a man applying for the same position. Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

From a friend in Wyoming:

The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.

HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!

Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.

Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]

Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]

Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]

Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]

Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]

Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]

Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]

Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]

Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]

I cant summons up a fuck to give regarding this... true story.

 

[pinqy]

Hively v Ivy Tech has been review by the entire court, so it's not settled yet.
But mostly, your analysis is waaaay off. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
The ruling by the 3-judge panel was that the Civil Rights Law of 1964 did not protect GLBT in general. That non-conformity to gender stereotypes does fall under the prohibition against sex discrimination (fired for acting too butch or too feminine), but that that's not the case is here. The ruling was that Ms. Hively was discriminated against, but it wasn't illegal.

Why doesn't the 1964 Civil Rights Act cover/insinuate/anticipate coverage of the addictive deviant sex behaviors "GLBT"? Neither the Constitution nor the Act have protections for non-conformity behaviors. That's up to states to regulate.

Interpretations differ. The 7th Circuit recognized that a good argument could be made that Title VII does indeed cover sexual orientation as a logical part of its prohibition on sex-discrimination. But Ms. Hively didn't make that case. "The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination; her claim is solely for sexual orientation discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statute. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court."

The reason Hively was discriminated against is because employers have certain decorum to maintain. I believe she was trying to be a lesbian in the sports complex of the school...which meant direct access to naked girls in the locker room and showers. Naked girls, to which she is sexually oriented. Ivy Tech would have been equally appropriate in denying employment to a man applying for the same position. Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..

She was a math teacher. She was caught kissing her girlfriend in a car. During the next four years she was denied promotion and eventually fired. Ivy Tech is denying they fired her because she's a lesbian.

 

[oreo]

From a friend in Wyoming:

The Wyoming State Legislature is considering a bill that, if passed, would become the most oppressive and wide-ranging anti-LGBT law in the nation. It would allow social workers to deny aid, teachers to not teach, health care workers to deny service not only to individuals that identify as LGBT, but their children as well. And that is just part of the bill... this bill tells our LGBT brothers and sisters that they are not worthy to receive services a straight cisgendered individual can receive.

HB-135 is scheduled to be voted upon by the Wyoming House Judiciary Committee this week, its first step toward becoming law. Please call and/or email members of this committee (contact info pasted below) and tell them to VOTE NO ON HB-135. No hate in the equality state!

Remember: Be firm but polite; introduce yourself and say where you're from; make your message personal.

Wyoming House Judiciary Committee -
Dan Kirkbride (Chugwater)
Cell - (307) 331-2265
[email protected]

Mark Baker (Rock Springs)
Cell - (307) 371-5113
[email protected]

Bo Biteman (Ranchester)
Cell - (307) 763-7613
[email protected]

Mark Jennings (Sheridan)
Cell - (307) 461-0697
[email protected]

Jared Olsen (Cheyenne)
Cell - (307) 509-0242
[email protected]

Charles Pelkey (Laramie)
Cell - (307) 920-0542
[email protected]

Bill Pownall (Gillette)
Home - (307) 682-4148
[email protected]

Tim Salazar (Dubois)
Cell - (307) 220-1213
[email protected]

Nathan Winters (Thermopolis)
Home - (307) 864-3690
[email protected]

This is another one that will be struck down by a higher court as soon as it is signed. These Reich wing Republicans love to waste time & taxpayer dollars on issues like this.

 

[Silhouette]

Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..

She was a math teacher. She was caught kissing her girlfriend in a car. During the next four years she was denied promotion and eventually fired. Ivy Tech is denying they fired her because she's a lesbian.

So on campus she was making out with her lesbian pal in a car. Maybe the school doesn't want that type of behavior in its employees? Deviant sex acts though they may be legal, are not permissible in certain climates. Drinking booze is legal. So is bulimia. But "open drunks" and "open bulimics" might not have a place on certain campuses where decorum and values matter to parents sending their young people there TO BE EDUCATED...and not in the wrong way..

The simple fact is that people can discriminate against BEHAVIORS they don't want on their school grounds. You may like lesbian deviant lifestyles, but parents of children do not. And this is how the school makes its money: by the amount of students they can get on their rolls. This lifestyle question will continue. Again, legal to drink, legal to do gay sex acts, legal to have bulimia...but not appropriate in all situations. Lawrence v Texas said "we won't jail you for private acts of sodomy". It DIDN'T say "take your sodomy out to the streets and we'll fine, punish or jail anyone who tries to stop you!!"

Bulimics and drunks may find society "unfair bigoted and cruel" for not allowing them to do their deviant behaviors wherever they like. But that's the way life is in a society where little ones practice monkey see, monkey do.. That lesbian Hively probably was doing that in the parking lot at school on purpose. The cult of LGBT knows and employs influences on children via the monkey see, monkey do principle. It's why we had gay education czar Kevin Jennings employing teaching boys "anal fisting" in schools as "OK, normal, fine..." I'm personally sick of this cult employing crocodile tears about "having to stay in the closet" just so they can get access to young people to influence them. And yes, you have noticed all the "outreach to youth" that the cult of LGBT is up to in the broad society and in the courts...

 

[pinqy]

Imagine the damage to the school if the word got out "yeah, that's the place where the locker room coach is an open lesbian". Appropriately the same as saying "yeah, that's the school where the girls' locker room coach is a man".. Parents would look elsewhere..

She was a math teacher. She was caught kissing her girlfriend in a car. During the next four years she was denied promotion and eventually fired. Ivy Tech is denying they fired her because she's a lesbian.

So on campus she was making out with her lesbian pal in a car. Maybe the school doesn't want that type of behavior in its employees? Deviant sex acts though they may be legal, are not permissible in certain climates. Drinking booze is legal. So is bulimia. But "open drunks" and "open bulimics" might not have a place on certain campuses where decorum and values matter to parents sending their young people there TO BE EDUCATED...and not in the wrong way..

The simple fact is that people can discriminate against BEHAVIORS they don't want on their school grounds. You may like lesbian deviant lifestyles, but parents of children do not. And this is how the school makes its money: by the amount of students they can get on their rolls. This lifestyle question will continue. Again, legal to drink, legal to do gay sex acts, legal to have bulimia...but not appropriate in all situations.

So basically, instead of caring about facts or consistent policy, you'll just pick some reason, any reason, to try and justify discriminating against homosexuals. Got it.

But tell you what.....I would agree with her being fired IF AND ONLY IF, she would have been fired for the same thing if she was heterosexual and had been making out with a man.

Under what circumstances/facts would you DISAGREE with her being fired for homosexuality?

 

[Silhouette]

So basically, instead of caring about facts or consistent policy, you'll just pick some reason, any reason, to try and justify discriminating against homosexuals. Got it.

But tell you what.....I would agree with her being fired IF AND ONLY IF, she would have been fired for the same thing if she was heterosexual and had been making out with a man.

Under what circumstances/facts would you DISAGREE with her being fired for homosexuality?

Read ALL of my last post, not just the parts you want people to feel sorry for you about..

 

[pinqy]

So basically, instead of caring about facts or consistent policy, you'll just pick some reason, any reason, to try and justify discriminating against homosexuals. Got it.

But tell you what.....I would agree with her being fired IF AND ONLY IF, she would have been fired for the same thing if she was heterosexual and had been making out with a man.

Under what circumstances/facts would you DISAGREE with her being fired for homosexuality?

Read ALL of my last post, not just the parts you want people to feel sorry for you about..

I read the whole thing. There is nothing to indicate what circumstances would make you think she was unjustly fired.

 

[Silhouette]

I read the whole thing. There is nothing to indicate what circumstances would make you think she was unjustly fired.

For making out with her lesbian girlfriend in the parking lot of a school where she works and part of her job description includes "an appropriate influence to young and impressionable minds". Gay behaviors were decriminalized in private via Lawrence. They were not legitimized in every other sphere of life however. That remains up to individual states and employers to grapple with. There is nothing protecting deviant sex addictions in the Constitution...not even a remote insinuation. If one deviant behavior "gains rights" (via improper interpretation of the Constitution) then they all must. Go back and read post 355 one more time..

 

[pinqy]

I read the whole thing. There is nothing to indicate what circumstances would make you think she was unjustly fired.

For making out with her lesbian girlfriend in the parking lot of a school where she works and part of her job description includes "an appropriate influence to young and impressionable minds". Gay behaviors were decriminalized in private via Lawrence. They were not legitimized in every other sphere of life however. That remains up to individual states and employers to grapple with. There is nothing protecting deviant sex addictions in the Constitution...not even a remote insinuation. If one deviant behavior "gains rights" (via improper interpretation of the Constitution) then they all must. Go back and read post 355 one more time..

Read what I wrote. I did NOT ask you why you think she SHOULD be fired. I pointed out that you changed your reasons why she should be fired.

At first you thought she should be fired because she would be in the locker room/showers and her orientation would make that unacceptable.
When you found out that that was not true and that she was only seen kissing her partner in a car, THAT became the reason you thought she should be fired.

My point is that I don't think you actually need a reason or rationale. That her being gay is enough of a reason for her to be fired regardless of anything else.
I could be mistaken and I asked you if you thought there were any circumstances where firing her for being gay would be wrong.

On a side note, I'm not sure how you think seeing her kiss her girlfriend would be an inappropriate influence. What do you think could happen? Do you think that if someone never sees homosexual behavior she will never try it? Or that seeing it would turn someone gay?