Comments on: Gay deaf man sues city for mistreatment

By: Wendy Wilkins Valdez

Wendy Wilkins Valdez — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 00:10:54 +0000

I agree. If ethnicity is key to the incident in some way, that's fine. But, I don't need to know that the guy you asked about how the snow affects your commute to work is Asian or Black or whatever. That has nothing to do with what the question is. And, the key in this article was that the ADA was violated. Being gay is no longer considered a disability. So, why mention it? Because of his HIV meds? Sorry, no! They could have just said he wasn't being given his meds properly for a chronic condition he has. UNLESS the doctor was deliberately discriminating – in which case, there WOULD be discrimination because of his being gay. They pointedly stated there was NO discrimination because of being gay.

By: Jen Francis

Jen Francis — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:45:46 +0000

I feel the same way about people who focus on race. Don't do that either, it's stupid.

By: Jen Francis

Jen Francis — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:44:59 +0000

right? Why couldn't it just say 'Deaf man sues city for mistreatment'. Same difference. There would NEVER be all this crap about 'gay/straight' etc if people did not TALK about it.

By: Wendy Wilkins Valdez

Wendy Wilkins Valdez — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:39:56 +0000

I'm wondering why, if there was no discrimination because he was gay, this fact was front and center in this article. Apparently someone thought it was of primary importance to the story, yet the story ends saying there was no anti-gay discrimination. Then why mention it?