Talk:Special rights

Both views
The debate is interesting and illuminating. It would appear to me that striving to have one view in the article would be doing no one any favours. Both sides of the debate, with explanations, should appear in the article. The finer points of the debate as featured here on the talk page reveal much about the topic in question. It would apear to me that the solution to the conflict would be to have both sides of the argument dicussed in depth on the article page. A compromise solution would be a muffled statement which doesn't reflect the true situation. SilkTork 08:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need some way to include both views, with each side contributing a wording acceptable to them. Somehow we should be able to present both wordings in the article.  Ideogram 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation active?
Is this dispute still active? --Ideogram 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to close this mediation. If you need to reopen it, you can leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Balancing quote in "Sexual orientation as a civil rights minority group"
We have an "against" special rights quote in this section. We also need a "pro-equal rights" quote to meet NPOV requirements. DavidBailey (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Housing and employment uncited section moved from article until cited properly
In many situations such as employment (in the European Union and the United States), as well as housing and public accommodations (in the United States), it is illegal to discriminate based on gender, race, religion, and other attributes.{Fact|date=November 2008} Some states and localities outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in certain circumstances, but many do not.{Fact|date=November 2008}  The European Union forbids such discrimination in employment, but not in regard to other matters, though some member states do.{Fact|date=November 2008}