Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

Because of that, he has an irrational bias towards it and will refuse to accept any logical discrimination against [homosexuality]it.

If you were paying attention, you would have also realized that I said that I can't make something that I don't know isn't clear clearer. It's up to you to tell me exactly what part doesn't make sense, else I'll just repeat what I said. Post 206, to include my other quoted post, is a lot of writing. I'm not going to waste time rewriting all of that when you can just point out which parts don't make sense.

If you say "all of it", then you're either lying or can't read. Since you don't seem to have a problem reading my last posts, I will have to defer to option A.

You are familiar with men suing Hooters for not allowing them to apply, right?

And how many men do you see working as servers at Hooters today?

ProTip: "Suing" =/= "Success"

The term you're looking for here is "bona fide occupational qualifications".

and success != correctness.

Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) are employment qualifications that employers are allowed to consider while making decisions about hiring and retention of employees. The qualification should relate to an essential job duty and is considered necessary for operation of the particular business.

The Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications rule allows for the hiring of individuals based on race, sex, age, and national origin if these characteristics are bona fide occupational qualifications. This is an exception and complete defense to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects employees from discrimination based on religion, sex, age, national origin and color at the workplace.
[...]
Examples of BFOQ's are: mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and airplane pilots for safety reasons, churches requiring members of its clergy to be of a certain denomination and may lawfully bar, from employment, anyone who is not a member.However, for positions at a church such as janitors, discrimination based on religious denomination would be illegal because religion has no effect on a person's ability to fulfill the duties of the job. Other examples of bona fide occupation qualifications include the use of models and actors for the purpose of authenticity or genuineness, the requirement of emergency personnel to be bilingual, judged on language competency, not national origin.

Who asked you to re-post it? Is it that hard for you to rephrase and consolidate? I'm sure, if you were a human being of average mental capacity, you'd be able to put together a paragraph that states your position in clear and concise terms.

Junior high schoolers are asked to do as much when they write a paper. Granted, It'd be tough for you to achieve their levels of success, but you'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask for you to give it the old college try.

It is, however, a measure of how the courts view it in regards to "discrimination".

Are you saying there's no place for bona fide occupational qualifications in the workplace?

If the problem is that you don't want read, then say so. What I wrote is clear, can it be more concise, yes. Can it be as concise as you want it? No.

Here's the thing. You all ALWAYS make the dumbest interpretation of every statement if there exist a single crack. As a result, I can't make ANY assumptions.

When you all quit making the dumbest assumptions and interpretations as opposed to the more logical ones when something is implied, then I can do that. What ends up happening, I end up spending so much time countering stupid assumptions, so I just add them in at the beginning, so all you can do is reply to MY argument, not a made up argument.

People don't want to argue a legitimate argument. They want to argue "You don't want homos to see you in the shower!", because that's what they are used to.

So, before you go around calling people an "embarrassment", you need to look yourself in the mirror.

Great, so traditional marriage isn't discrimination. Glad you agree.

What is voted on as success is highly determined what party is in office.

I said the exact opposite. HTF did you confuse that? Did you even read my other post?