That's an extremely dangerous door to open.
No, not really. That door is only opened when you're bent on following up a simple point with non sequiturs. It should have been obvious that I do not mean to say that needs of the LGBT community are specific needs in the same sense one "needs" an injection. The specificity of the analogy has nothing to do with the point of the analogy, which is to show that equal treatment does not necessarily preclude discrimination (and sometimes constitutes it).
I say you're following my point with non sequiturs because neither my analogy nor the LGBT situation involve the law being "slanted" towards a group, something which nearly all your examples presuppose. Both hetero/homosexual people and injection A/B people are being treated the same way after the law is reformed, in that they still have equal rights. Instead of one group being granted a preferential treatment (what I take "slanting" to mean), the law was made broad enough to accommodate both groups, without inconveniencing either. In that sense, it is no longer discriminatory.
Why can't I argue that the Christian and Muslim communities of certain states don't have a need to see God's will (the way they interpret it) enforced on earth?
You can argue any position you want, as this forum and the rest of the internet makes evident.
The issue is how successful you are.
Edited by Tale, 29 June 2015 - 01:43 PM.