After reading the article from
this is what John W K has to say concerning "special rights" people think they have:

Privileged Classes
by John W. K.

"     What the ordinance does is allow an identifiable group, homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals, to invoke the force of government as a favored class against owners of property and business owners who may not want to enter into a contractual agreement or business association with the favored class created by the ordinance. Under the ordinance business and property owners will feel the fury of government force for not hiring the protected class or renting their homes or other property to this privileged class.

     Make no mistake, such an ordinance in general should be applicable to publicly owned property and government operations. But such a law in a freedom loving society which claims to protect the inalienable rights of all, should not be applicable to the people as they engage in their ordinary business contracts and associations. People ought to be left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

     Since the founding of our nation, inalienable rights of mankind have been repeatedly recognized which include, among other things, the right to life, liberty, rights associated with property ownership and the pursuit of happiness. And, within the meaning of “liberty” the U.S. Supreme Court has properly noted that the right to contract is within the meaning of liberty:

     In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 , we are reminded by the Court:

     'The liberty mentioned in that Amendment [the Fourteenth] means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.'

     But even more important, let us not forget what Florida’s own Court stated in the Terri Schiavo case. The Court declared that a government act “impinging” on a fundamental right is “presumptively unconstitutional” and requires the state to carry the burden to show the act does not violate the Constitution.

     So, as it turns out, the ordinance in question, which impinges on the fundamental right to contract, impinges upon fundamental liberty and impinges upon rights associated with property ownership, is therefore “presumptively unconstitutional”!

     Those who promoted and supported the ordinance have pretended to take a high moral ground and denounce the immorality of “discrimination “ [people being free to choose who they contract and associate with]. But the Court has succinctly addressed this frivolous and misleading claim. In Lawrence vs. Texas, an opinion well known by the supporters of the ordinance we find:
“The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”

     This ordinance, an unmistakable “moral code”, is intentionally designed by special interested advocates to interfere with and impinge upon fundamental rights of an identifiable group, and specifically, interfere with property and business owners who loose their unalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and business associations and may want to choose to not do business with a specific individual.

     If the belief in `equal protection of the laws' means anything, surely it must at the very least mean that a politically unpopular group, such as “homophobes”, should not be singled out using the force of government in a manner which deprives them of their irrefutable unalienable rights such as the right to mutually agree in contracts and business associations and rights associated with property ownership.

     The question is, why is there such a fervor among homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals to impinge upon the fundamental rights of a politically unpopular group who may choose to avoid any dealings with them? Does this unpopular group not deserve the same equal protection under the law in pursuing their happiness as those who assert a different life-style than theirs?

     Keep in mind the same mentality exists among our nation’s smoke control freaks as those promoting the above mentioned ordinance in that their ultimate aim is an economic one which seeks to use the force of government to seize control over other people’s property and businesses for their personal economic advantage and enjoyment, and, they too have found a cleverly way to disguise their motives, they pretend it’s a public health issue.     "