Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII that it prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Base on this act, federal government and its agencies have since implemented necessary measures to protect federal employees from being discriminated including discrimination based on sexual orientation. Specifically, Executive Order 13087 signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton on May 28, 1998.

For non-federal employees, the protection relies on the U.S. constitution that it guarantees all people equal protection of the law. This means that a state cannot single out one group of people and treat them differently without a compelling reason for doing so.

The landmark case Romer v. Evans, 1996, was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. The Court gave its ruling on May 20, 1996, against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. (Wikipedia)

In the case Quinn v. Nassau County Police Department, N.Y. 1999, a federal judge Arthur Spatt in New York, relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case Romer v. Evans, has ruled that “sexual orientation discrimination in the public workplace is actionable as an equal protection violation.”

Quinn’s lawyer, Rick Ostrove said the ruling gives homosexuals the same level of protection as racial minorities and women. "Judge Spatt is the first judge to explicitly recognize that discrimination based on sexual orientation can give rise to a hostile work environment claim under the U.S. Constitution Equal Protection Clause,” Ostrove said.

Giving all the facts above, the claim that “discrimination against people based on sexual orientation is completely legal in U.S.” is totally groundless and misleading.

just FYI

的確蠻感人的,
不管是以自由女神及美國憲法去反駁對方,
或是選戰勝利時所呈現的喜悅,
那種奮戰的真誠與精神,
若沒有透過艱苦的努力是無法反應出來的,

的確也會讓人感動落淚,
當他對著支持群眾喊著希望,
或是最後整片蠋光綿延街頭為他送行,

當然,Sean Penn 的演技讓電影整個靈活了起來,
2個小時的電影卻不覺得很長(只是看完都11點半了)。

不知有沒有人看過力挽狂瀾可以比較2位男主角？
下一部電影就是等著貧民百萬富翁了。
(真羨慕可以先看到試映,我們還要等上一週呢)

在美國同志是沒有什麼人權可言 (公司因為你是同性戀而開除你是完全合法的…告不了公司)

不過歐洲國家是真的比較開放