Criticism of, or legal action contrary to the whims of affluent special interest groups like gays who do not possess or qualify for protected class status does not constitute "discrimination." Saying that a wealthy corporation president doesn't qualify for protected class minority status isn't "discriminating" against him or her. It's simply stating a fact. No amount of non-actionable verbal "millionaire-bashing," for example, will compel government to declare Teddy Kennedy or other plutocrats a protected class. They simply don't qualify for that status, nor do gays, or any other special interest group. As Past Chairman of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission John Franklin has said, "To have discrimination, you have to have a disadvantaged class. And at this point... this class does not meet the judicially recognized criteria for protection."

F. Tom Duran, Director of Regional Offices, the Colorado Civil Rights Division, has said, "I think there is a tremendous difference between gays and lesbians and the traditional protected class minorities... I don't see gay ghettoes, I don't see gays [being] homeless, I don't see gays being disadvantaged politically or economically... I think they have tremendous power, they have tremendous economic control, and I don't think that they are in the same disadvantaged class as blacks, American Indians, Hispanics, women and other minority groups." Ignacio Rodriguez, also a Past Chairman of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, has commented: "If you are economically viable, you can obtain certain things that those who are economically disadvantaged cannot... For all practical purposes, [gays] as a group, are in the advantaged category. So I would not anticipate that anyone would identify this group in those arenas with other, ethnic minorities. For [gays] to indicate that at any time they, as a group, have suffered the consequences of discrimination that ethnic minorities have suffered is ludicrous."

Furthermore, refusing to grant special advantages to gays does not deprive gay people of a single fundamental Constitutional right. Protected class status bestows rights and privileges additional to the Constitution's fundamental protections. A non-disabled Caucasian male under 40 years of age with no specific ethnic identity is not a beneficiary of protected class status; nevertheless, it cannot be said that he doesn't possess all fundamental Constitutional rights because he does not enjoy special status. It's gay extremists who seem most eager to "reversely discriminate" against most other Americans, by forcing gay militants' radical political agenda on society, criminalizing expression of all viewpoints opposed to their own and institutionalizing their own value systems by using government as a bludgeon to advance their interests.

No, opposing special gay advantages isn't "discriminating against gays," it's simply making an absolutely critical distinction between a powerful special interest group which already shares all the fundamental rights of American citizenship and far more advantages than most Americans -- and true protected classes. Deny civil rights law the ability to make such distinctions, and the entire structure of civil rights as we know it will collapse. Likewise, opposing special gay advantages is not "singling out gays" for unfair treatment. Gay activists have singled themselves out by aggressively pursuing special protected status to which they demonstrably have no valid claim whatsoever. Thus, gays' "singling themselves out" constitutes nothing less than a fraudulent claim. To deny this claim is only an act of justice.

Some argue that denying "gay rights" laws reflects a desire to create opportunities to deny gays jobs, housing, etc., i.e., an attempt to create opportunities to persecute gays and exclude them from full participation in society. We reply: "Gay rights" laws involve setting aside fundamental Constitutional rights on less-than-rational grounds. Again, civil rights law never allows such abridgement for frivolous reasons; in fact, it does so in only one circumstance -- where categorical assertion of a right would exclude fully qualifying, specially protected classes on non-behavioral grounds. But gay militants want to deny others the right to freely associate without proving that gays qualify for suspect or protected class status. To grant "gayness" such an extraordinary privilege, on no basis other than alleged sexual fantasy, would be to break all precedent, seriously compromise civil rights laws and do irreparable harm to legitimate protected classes.