Do LGBT have other civil rights?

I know some states, counties, and local governments have included sexual orientation as a group which can't be discriminated.

I know some companies included sexual orientation to the list of people they won't discriminate. Some have even extended benefits to the same sex partners of employees.

But, without these happening is there anything which protects LGBT from being discriminated against.

I know some say LGBT has the U.S. Constitution which all Americans have, but I am talking out being fired from a job, not being able to rent an apartment, and things not specifically stated in the Constitution. The things which made anti-discrimination laws and policies needed in the first place.

I know things are getting better for LGBT. I have been out in Alabama for about 10 years without discrimination (that I knew about) other than of course not being able to get married, a civil union or a domestic partnership.

Why isn't it the same?

I just heard a caller on Talk of the Nation state something which I have heard many times.

African Americans vote against gay marriage because of religious reason. AND, are offended because the LGBT community equate our equal rights fight to the equal rights they fought for.

Why is fighting for one civil right differ from fighting for another?

How is this any different than the Loving v. Virginia ruling? Wasn't interracial marriage once condemned for religious reason?

What if gay marriage makes it to the Supreme Court? Please Vote

One day one of the state constitutions which have made homosexuals 2nd class citizens will (I think) make it to the supreme court.
How would the current justices vote?
Please vote and leave comments if you like.

Ethics of keeping wild animals as pets.

I have a neighbor who rescues wild animals, raccoons, opossums, ground hogs, squirrels and a like, usually babies who mothers were killed, I understand this although I would take them to a local wild animal shelter which attempts to release the animals with as little human contact as possible, if it were me.

She raises them as pets, but as adults she does allow them to go and come as they wish using a doggy door. They are not frightened of people and have come to rely on my neighbor for a food supply even if they choose to not live in her house any more. I know she has the best intentions and in no way wants to harm the animals and they would have died if left alone as babies.

Please don't get me wrong I have dogs, cats and fish. The dogs and cats of course are now domesticated animals and were all rescues. The fish were purchased from a reputable pet store and are farmed not wild caught.

I don't mean to overly judge my neighbor and no matter if I or anyone agrees or not what she is doing is legal because none of the animals are protected and the city we live in only have regulations on dogs and livestock.

But, here are my concerns;
The animals are still wild enough to bring diseases to our dogs and cats.
Because they were raised around dogs and cats they are not afraid of them. So they have no fear of them although the dogs and cats in the neighborhood still think of them as prey (not everyone in the neighborhood follows the leash laws for dogs or keeps their cats in the house).
Traveling to and from her house causes them to cross roads more often than they would in nature and may get killed.
If they breed with fully wild animals will a wild crossed with a domestic cause a semi-domesticated breed which are too tame to function in the wild but too wild to be fed by my neighbor thus starve once weened from their mothers?

Like I said there isn't much anyone could do to stop her but what would you all do? Am I being overly dramatic and shouldn't be concerned or am I just as bad owning dogs, cats and fish? I am just seeking wisdom of others.

Gay Marriage Question

Today, yet another red state is most likely going to tell the LGBT community they are 2nd class citizens.

I don't understand constitutional law but I really don't understand how it could be constitutional to restrict a person from marrying another person. It seems the freedoms in the U.S. Constitution should allow LGBT marriage and over rule any states petty bigotry.

Also, I have yet to hear a reason not to allow LGBT marriage which isn't based on the bible or religion. The first amendment states there should not be a national religion and we can practice or not practice any religion we wish. It seems any law which can only be based on the bible or religion cannot be constitutional.

Has there ever been a case in the supreme court which bases the argument since it is religion which restrict LGBT marriage, that restricting LGBT marriage is unconstitutional?

As to the will of the people, well if we waited for the majority of people to give freedoms, only land owning (rich) white men would have any freedom, we would still own other people and women couldn't vote.

I can't believe how people feel

In USA Today there is a story about Asian Tiger Shrimp Invading the Gulf Coast and lower Atlantic Coast. Part of the story talk about how they will eat native shrimp and/or eat their food, either way they will put the native shrimp in danger.

I am posting the link not so much about the shrimp themselves although it is an interesting story, but I want to encourage you to read some of the comments. The first ones listed (at least when I read the story) had many people who had no concern at all that the native shrimp may be eliminated. Some even eluted it would be a good think, the invasive shrimp is bigger, easier to eat, and currently cheaper.

I am always shocked when I hear people take no regard for the planet they live or the animals which live around them.


[link:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/story/2012-05-07/asian-tiger-shrimp-gulf-mexico/54816844/1|

A new Republican claim that I haven't heard.

Yesterday, on The Diane Rehm Show the guests were the authors of the new book “It’s Even Worst Than It Looks”, Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann. It is about the gridlock in congress and places a majority blame on the Republicans. No argument from me.

But, I heard a caller make a claim which I had not heard before. I thought I may have misunderstood, so I listened to the rebroadcast. It still surprised me so I waited for the transcript before asking DU if this is a common claim.

Here is the excerpt (I have included the time stamp and will give the link, so anyone who wants to get the full context);

Please tell me this is just for dramatic effect

For some reason I have been watching several of the nuclear war movies I have on DVD or VHS. Some of the ones written from the mistaken launch/source point of view often have one thing in common. At some point the president is in a room with his advisors, one or more are the voice of reason trying to pull back before total devastation is unleashed but the rest are the war hawks wanting to show their strength, feeling a sudden full retaliatory response would/could bring total devastation to the enemy with acceptable losses to our side.

One of these movies (the most popular, in modern times) The Sum of All Fears, show the same type of situation occurring on the other side also.

With the movies they do this for the dramatic effect, but sometimes art imitates life.

While I realize we have not had an exchange of nuclear weapons ever and only two weapons have been dropped in anger to date (and hopefully forever), so the exact situation has not occurred. However, in my mind I can imagine this happening for real.

History has fairly well documented the debate when the timeline is hours and days, such as the Cuban Missile Crises where some of Kennedy’s military advisors wanted to launch an attack, but the seconds and minutes are a little less known (or at least I haven’t heard the accounts) although we know we have had some near misses when it comes to launching nuclear weapons.

The reason I bring this up is every four years when we elect a president we hear about many important issues, such as the economy, the environment and the military, but with one or two conventional wars occurring nuclear weapons have not been discussed much since the cold war except for keeping them out of Iran.

I for one vote with the knowledge the Commander in Chief is the ONE who would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in the forefront of my mind. I also remind myself that for now the mistaken launch/source is a more probable situation than the nuclear attacks feared during the cold war.

Now I imagine the situation room, suspected to be in the basement of the White House, in it are the highest level advisors to the president giving advise as how to proceed but ultimately it is the President, our Commander in Chief who will give the launch order.

I picture Barack Obama, someone known for making decisions to help the common person, then I picture Mitt Romney, someone known to make decisions without the concern as to how it affects the common person. Who do I want to be making that decision for the next four years?

Just food for thought. What do you all think?

Are descriptors always bigoted?

Here in the south people will add a descriptor to almost everything, even if it isn't needed. This is true from people to objects. However, when they are added to people they can come arose as bigoted.
Example;

The ______ man crossed the street. The blank may be old, gay, black, jewish, cute ect. Sometimes when I hear this I think to myself "why do I need to know that, what difference does it make", yet at others I don't know if the person can help themselves or even realizes they know they are doing it. They are simply adding details, they will continue to add descriptors to almost every thing.
Is it possible for a person to identify people with descriptors and it not be bigoted?

The reason I asked is I heard a caller on a local call in radio show get cut off in mid sentence when they did just that. The descriptor used is a common term used by persons in that group, not generally thought of a offensive, it is heard in the news, and media everyday without concern. The subject of the show was how people come to strangers help in times of trouble. So, I have my doubt the caller was meaning any ill feelings. Was it right for the host to cut the caller off?

DU Question Re-posted

DU question

I have been on DU for some time but am just starting to go beyond "Latest Thread", so I have a couple of "dumb" questions but I will show my ignorance and ask anyway.

What is the difference between a "group" and a "forum" as to the DU world, are the rules or policies different?

Why do some posts on a specific group/forum post only at that location yet others post to latest threads also? (On that one I thought I knew the answer but have proven myself wrong.)