Majority of Americans support gay rights over religious freedom bills

[Hatshepsut]

Our constitution in section 1 of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all American citizens. It doesn't make any special requirement that said citizens must have a history of chattel slavery...It only says that American citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law... 

...and forbids passage of laws that "abridge the privileges or immunities" of citizens or deprives them "of life, liberty, or property without due process." And I have no problem with this. Indeed the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of civil war, is a constitutional cornerstone. However, there's a difference between equal protection under law and membership in a group which law singles out for special recognition. For instance, an employer is free to discriminate at will against lanky males who speak in a slow Texas drawl because these people do not belong to a protected group. Yet does such discrimination hurt them any less? Personally, I would favor a law requiring all large employers (say those with more than about 50 or 75 workers) to give a business reason justifying a refusal to hire in every case, if an applicant requests they do so, and defend that reason in court if an applicant sues. It would be much better than the patchwork quilt we're busy developing now.

Although I don't agree with George F. Will on most issues, he did advance the concept of the "grievance group," stating correctly that political allocation by group creates resentment and has occasioned many violent conflicts. That's why I prefer a minimum of laws that set economic quotas or prescribe behavior toward members of identity groups.

I do take peeve to the women's and LGBT advocacies comparing themselves directly with the historical African-American plight. The latter were chained, lynched, prevented from voting, relegated to shacks in the river bottoms, and otherwise treated with a vile and pointed brutality no American group except the Indians can even dream of. They still get sent to prison or shot by police with astonishing frequency today. While I'm not one to say that women and gays have no legitimate cause, or that they shouldn't advocate for themselves, their agenda doesn't possess the urgency the freedom bus riders had in 1961. At that time activists saw a need to align interests and present a common front for social change lest their efforts be defeated by divide and conquer. Today the game has become a selfish parody of the Civil Rights movement. None of the grievance groups are interested in universal social justice or welfare, only in what they can garner for their own corners.

...we've never defined prejudice itself as a wrong, only that its absence is a virtue.

What?

I owe you clarification. Prejudice is an internal state of mind or emotion, private to the individual holding it. As opposed to discrimination, which is an act directed at someone else. Discrimination doesn't actually require prejudice. For instance a landlord who isn't prejudiced against gays may deny housing to a gay couple anyway, due to fear of pressure from a vocal neighborhood group. I admit that I have my own personal prejudices and suspect most other people do too. I keep these to myself since I don't consider myself an arbiter of community values. An open mind, free of prejudice, is ideal. But ethics doesn't require we be ideal, only that we refrain from wrongdoing.

I'm not hoping for your death. I'm only hoping for the death of your prejudice. Failing that, its political irrelevancy. 

I'm pleased you don't wish me dead. May you live long and prosper.  

You may be assuming that I don't like persons of alternative sexualities. That's not true. Failure to support items on the gay political agenda does not imply animosity toward gays. In fact, a person's sexuality is none of my business. I'm pleased to see some states passing gay marriage and adoption statutes, because these laws merely allow gays to do something nearly everyone else can do, and don't respect a defined gay identity group. So no problem.

I'm not nuts about the recent Indiana law either. I would prefer no law, but Gov. Pence fears a law in the opposite direction could be enacted and he chose to preempt that possibility.

As for political irrelevance, I'm already there. I have no money or power and make few decisions for others...