What if you had a condition or inclination that rendered you totally unique? Does the Constitution require that laws be passed that accommodate only you, even at the expense of society at large? 

Let’s say you are a blind quadriplegic who decides to “hike” the Appalachian Trail.  The Appalachian Trail stretches from Springer Mountain Georgia to Mount Katahdin, Maine a distance of approximately 2160 miles. About 2700 people a year attempt to hike it from end to end or thru-hike. Another 3-4 million people enjoy portions of the trail each year. It runs through private property on easements, state parks and forests, and National Parks and Forests. State and Federal money is used to preserve and maintain the trail. No motorized vehicles or pack animals are allowed on the trail. It is not handicapped accessible. Is this a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Should the government provide wheelchair accessibility along the entire length?  If not wheelchair accessibility, maybe a sedan chair arrangement with four hardy chair carriers switched out every couple of miles.

If a baker can be made to bake a cake for a client that the baker doesn’t want, why does a pharmaceutical manufacturer get to pick and choose what clients they will serve?  There are a whole host of diseases that effect a small percentage of the population. In many cases there is no known treatment or cure for the malady.  Occasionally a pharmaceutical manufacturer will stumble upon a new drug or find a new application for an old drug. But because the market for the drug is so small, the manufacturer does not carry out clinical trials and the drug is never approved for use.  Kinda sounds like a baker who didn’t want to delve into a particular market place.

At the risk of encouraging democrats, I would point out that in Texas it is not against the law to have sex with animals.  It only becomes illegal if somebody else sees you engaged in sex with the animal. Since the Texas Sodomy statute is pretty much a thing of the past.  This is the situation all these “trans” people find themselves in, they can indulge in what ever sexual flights of fancy floats their boat, as long as it is done privately.

I suspect there is something else in play here.  Have you seen pictures of these people?  I’m inclined to believe most have them have been told, with good reason, you are too fat, you are as ugly as ten miles of bad road, you have a personality that would have Mother Theresa give up her sainthood just for the chance to whoop your ass and even the dog wouldn’t play with you, after we tied a pork chop round your neck.  Despite all of that they found somebody to have sex with or at least what passes for sex given whatever combination and they just gotta brag about it.

I think accommodations go both ways.  Don’t want to hear my opinion on a particular subject, stay out of my face. If you are seeking validation for your poor choices, don’t come to me.  Offended by my rejection, tough shit.  I don’t have to accept you as you are, I can reject you entirely and I haven’t lost anything.  For all that, I couldn’t be bothered to cross the street, sign a petition, or carry a sign. There’s my accommodation.

Freedom to associate, and worship as one chooses are rights recognized in the First Amendment.  Sexuality and the myriad of perversions are not civil rights, never have been.  Up until the 70’s sexual practices bandied about so freely now used to be criminal acts.  Part of what the framers believed was, that government had no business involving itself in the intimate affairs of its citizens. That was good policy then and is good policy now.

Sexual deviance and various mild mannered perversions practiced in the privacy of the home are one thing. I would agree I don’t have a stake in whether or not you choose to masturbate. However, I draw the line when you insist on using my hand.