"... and to some extent ongoing."

Yes R0bert, such as this from a few days ago:

http://www.sott.net/article/297690-Young-man-in-Delta-Utah-attacked-robbed-had-the-words-die-fag-carved-into-his-arm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwhBnGvYZ6U

"There has to be some objective measure of what is sexual orientation otherwise the laws are a joke."

No phanto, the basis of discrimination laws is predicated upon the act of an offender based upon their perception of a legally protected status.

For example, there is no objective measure of what is a person's religious belief - only their assertion of it. Yet there are laws providing relief based upon this. Are they a joke? The laws, that is, not the people...

CM: “A suitable form of such a response...” Nah, you're the one who needs to get “suitable”: you failed entirely to engage with substantive points of argument.

Craig, you must have had trouble with English comprehension tasks at school. I admire your courage in affixing your name to the posts though – me, I'm a scaredy cat because I want to minimise the hassle I've already had, especially in workplaces, from bigots enforcing their rule of bogus identity politics and the distraction it succeeds in making in order to impoverish our entire political culture.

Craig, try take issue with any of my substantive points. Who knows? You might be able to grasp something of a different world view and sense of life's purpose.

Yuyutsu:
"What you describe is an additional problem."

Well I think the problem I describe encompasses yours. If my problem was solved so would yours and dozens of others.

WmTrevor:

"No phanto, the basis of discrimination laws is predicated upon the act of an offender based upon their perception of a legally protected status."

Well I am saying such laws should not exist for homosexual people until such time as there is a method of proof like there is with race and gender.

"For example, there is no objective measure of what is a person's religious belief - only their assertion of it. Yet there are laws providing relief based upon this. Are they a joke?"

Yes they're a joke as well.

Phanto, it doesn't matter what the claimant says, if there is no discrimination, there is no case.

However, I do tend to agree with you that the anti-discrimination laws have tended to expand to fill the space available. As in any evolutionary process, if a niche becomes available, then some form of creature will evolve to inhabit it. In some cases, those creatures act in a way that will expand their niche. This is precisely the case with lawyers of all types and just one of the reason that the doctrine of Separation of Powers is so important, in its capacity to limit the excessive expansion of any of the arms of the legislative/legal complex of the State.

It may be time to think about expanding that doctrine to include the other players that didn't exist at the time of the early Westminster Parliaments, such as corporations of all types - for-profit and otherwise, professional advocacy groups, lobby groups (which are already regulated) and so on. While these groups have no formal role in the process, there is no doubt that their often-murky dealings with Parliament are highly influential and cause significant skewing of decision-making.

Yuyutsu, if you believe in karma, why are you worried about the law? On the other hand, if you don't like the rule of law, then you may need to find a desert island somewhere that nobody else already has a claim to and set up your own anarcho-religious society. good luck with that. Look up "New Australia" for an instructive example.

R0bert, I'm not comfortable with an argument that goes along the lines of "because that happened then, this is justified now", except to the extent that it is designed to prevent "that" happening now and is carefully examined as to its consequences in other ways.

MO, I'm sure your POV is terribly interesting to you, but I'm a simple man and all I need is an answer to the simple question that I asked nearly 80 posts ago. Have you got one?

CM, you got a thorough answer to a question you asked, then you claimed, "poor victim", that you haven't been answered because you choose instead to isolate a separate previous question upon which that second question was based. That's dishonest, and a dishonest agenda reveals a fraudulent campaign using dirty and brutal tactics.

But your tactic is obvious to any who care to reflect on it: your mention of brutal "game theory" revealed itself earlier. That is how you intend to keep on your own agenda with its fatally flawed assumption and false comparison between "non-Christian marriage" and the sham, fake and pretend Gay "marriage" your agenda seeks to impose ie, by squealing "victim of discrimination".

Your two questions' together, and their assumed comparisons, would be offensive to all those faithful to such traditions and their life-affirming perpetuation of actual marriage.

Your two questions together are not simple but simplistic in that they treat the subjects of (your preferred) comparison in a brutal and unjust manner, as we are familiar from any who pose false argument.

Such brutality and its attendant arrogance and disregard for its subjects of comparison would hint at just why most countries still oppose your sham agenda on basic human rights grounds.

Such brutality and dishonesty in your two questions together would also confirm the aptness of my references to both recent and ancient history where the personal inadequacies and failures in the many Gay Nazis, including Hitler, and cultish-pederast Spartans inspired a brutal lashing out at those who had not submitted to their fatally flawed, stunted and brutal identities and world view.

//De-facing someone’s property might not be a major crime but it says something about the person who does it. It says they are not content with obtaining justice they want to lash out and hurt someone who has done nothing more than express an opinion which they did not like.//

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI

So the centurion was lashing out at the romans for expressing opinions he didn't like? Wait, I'm confused...

Maybe people write on walls for all sorts of reasons.