Should Discrimination against Gays and Lesbians be Legally Prohibited? (應否立法禁止歧視男/女同性戀者?)

In our society, gays and lesbians seldom openly acknowledge their sexual orientations. Most gays and lesbians are forced to live a shadowy existence in the dark corners of cinemas, restaurants, bars or the privacy of their "homes". Why? Experience has taught them that openly flaunting or even just accidentally disclosing their sexual orientation may have some serious consequences affecting their social encounters with "normal" people, the prospects of getting or retaining their job or careers or getting promotions or advancement, especially in the so-called disciplinary forces, the prospects of being admitted to certain social clubs, sports club or professional associations and very often conservative churches or religious-affiliated organizations and doing so are fraught with risk to their public image. Yet in other respects, gays and lesbians are just "ordinary" people, like you and me, who need to eat, to sleep, to wear clothes, to have sex, to love and be loved, to receive education, to have jobs or careers, a craft or a trade, to need housing or if they fall upon bad times, to need assistance from various services offered by the government and/or NGOs. Perhaps that's why most of them stay within their "closets". Common sense will tell us that if one has to constantly live in mortal fear of one's true "sexual identity" being exposed, that must be a very painful or at least not a very pleasant experience. What is the reason for such pain and suffering, such unpleasantness or such artificially raised obstacles to leading a rather more "normal" life which every one else seem able to enjoy? Prejudice and arising from such prejudice discriminatory remarks and acts of refusing exposed gays and lesbians some of the essential services, opportunities and assistance they need to live a "normal" life.

Curiously, some of the conservative Christians have gathered in huge numbers (they claim 50,000, the police say about 5,000) in public to voice their opposition to the Government's intention of legislating against discriminatory words and practices against persons with reference to their "sexual orientation". It's interesting to note that the Catholic Church, which boasts some 300,000 faithfuls in Hong Kong, does not appear to have spoken out against the proposed legislation. Perhaps they think that such legislation is consistent with the notion of Christian love and justice. Whatever the reason for such conspicuous absence may be, let's look a little more closely at  the grounds the Protestant Christians,which at one time was a progressive force in the Christian movement, claim to have in support of the validity of their claims? I do not claim to know all their grounds. According to the report of the Ming Pao (14.01.13):
(1) 大會宣言強調「人人平等」，「反同性戀行為，不等於歧視同性戀者」
(2)發言牧師亦指出，教會從不是強迫別人接受他們觀念，但立法將
      (a) 帶來另一種歧視，並
      (b) 影響言論自由及下一代教育，「（立法後）同性戀者可以批評傳統一夫一妻，但我們不能批評同性戀」。
(3) 多個基督
教團體為反對性傾向歧視條例立法...活動召集人、播道會恩福堂牧師譚子舜雖強
調，只反對立法但並非反對就是否立法諮詢，但大會講道牧者之一、陳恩明牧師在台上表示，如果展開諮詢就沒辦法不立法，擔心一旦立法，會造成「逆向歧視」。

It seems to me that those who argue thus would, on a superficial first look, appear to have some grounds but upon examination, such "grounds" do not appear to be logically and factually sustainable. I'll explain why.

The Assembly emphasized the concept of "人人平等". If that means every one should enjoy equal "rights", then I suppose that must include the "right not to be discriminated against" by reason of their sexual orientation, a concept much wider than just homosexuality or lesbianism but also includes heterosexual orientations. If so, one must ask, "what must be the necessary consequences of having homosexual or lesbian orientations?" Certainly one necessary consequence of having such sexual orientations or tendencies must be the "expression" of such "orientations" or "tendencies" in real life i.e. conduct which such sexual orientations naturally lead to. The opposing Christians appear to want to distinguish "homosexual conduct" from the "practitioner" of such "homosexual conduct". Conceptually of course, a person is not necessarily just his conduct: it may include his thoughts, his feelings, his attitudes or his tendencies to behave in certain ways rather than in other ways.  By way of answer, I would ask them an extremely simple question: "can there ever be human conduct without a human being?" The answer seems obvious. If we can't, then will "discrimination against homosexual conduct" not to the extent that the Christians discriminate against such "homosexual conduct"  not at the same time be discriminating against the homosexuals as human beings too?  In classical Chinese philosophy, we learn that the nominalists (名家) have once argued that "a white horse is not a horse" (白馬非馬) i.e. an "attribute" of a horse is not "identical" with the horse. This is certainly analytically correct. But I ask, in reality, as a matter of telling how we judge a homosexual as a person in our every day encounter with the latter, can we separate his "identity" as a "homosexual' from his "homosexual conduct"?  Even if they argue that "theoretically" or "linguistically" we can do so, such an argument can have no "practical" or "empirical" meaning in the actual context in which such so-called "Christians" encounter the relevant homosexuals. In short, they are talking "non-sense" or "nonsense." Verbal tricks of sophistry will get them nowhere .
 
Those who are against legislating against discrimination against other persons by reason of their "sexual orientations" also appear to be claiming that legislation will bring about "another kind of discrimination" which 陳恩明牧師 elaborates as 「逆向歧視」or "reverse discrimination". Here I suppose what he means is that once the relevant legislation is passed, then Christian mouths will be muzzled and their voice silenced IF they continue to preach against homosexuality in accordance with their own interpretations of certain passages in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. They claim that  homosexuals may criticize the one-man-one woman traditional marriage but Christians will not be permitted to criticize homosexuality「（立法後) 同性戀者可以批評傳統一夫一妻，但我們不能批評同性戀 」. To me, there are a number of problems with this "argument".
(1) Hong Kong is a party to the International Covenant of Human Rights. The HKSAR Government is committed to freedom of speech and publication, and also to  freedom to practice one's own religion or faith, both of which are our fundamental rights. Such right will extend "equally" to homosexuals and Christians alike. The homosexuals will NOT have any rights which the Christians do not now enjoy. IF we may judge by reference to our existing legislation against discrimination against "gender", then, as far as freedom of speech is concerned, only what the ordinary person regard as "abusive" or "insulting" words and words  which may reasonably be viewed (the test being objective) as "disturbing" will be prohibited. If so, then if a Christian minister preaches his faith and beliefs in accordance with what is said in the Bible, including those passages in the Bible that he/she believes is against homosexual practices ( actually the words "homosexuality" or "lesbianism" or for that matter, the expression "sexual orientation"  do not appear in the Bible for the simple reason that such concepts did not yet exist at the time they were written or edited), to people who attend at their churches or places of worship and not talk openly to the lay public on the radio or some other secular environment against the express provision of the intended legislation, then he/she will be well within their rights. 
(2) We have not yet seen the true text of the intended legislation. Therefore we do NOT YET know what EXACTLY will be included or not included in the intended law. IF "Christians" are worried that their "freedom of speech" or their "religious freedom" in regard to "discrimination" against homosexuality may be infringed, I am quite sure they will through more than one "anti-homosexuality"  sympathizers in the Legislative Assembly propose the relevant "amendments" to the draft legislation to ensure that their rights to preach their own faith within their church will be preserved. In any event, if as they claim, they are not "against discrimination against homosexuals", then there should be little to worry about. It seems that they are jumping the gun and "crying wolf" by claiming that the proposed legislation will lead to "reverse discrimination" and "loss of freedom of speech" for Christians even before the text of the relevant legislation is out. I don't think they will be foolish enough to argue that they have a "right" to "discriminate" against 'homosexuals" once the proposed legislation is passed. If not, what "rights" will they have lost by the intended legislation?
(3) "reverse discrimination"  (「逆向歧視」) is a legal concept related to what has been called "affirmative action". In ethnic legislation in America, certain states have in purported implementation of "equal rights" for ethnic minorities, given "priority" to certain ethnic minorities in their admission policies for state colleges by fixing a definite "ratio" for the annual intake of students based on their ethnicity instead of on their objectively tested academic abilities. Such "active steps" taken to redress the perceived disproportion of the number of "ethnic majority" to "ethnic minority" (whites vs colored) in college population is called "affirmative action" but the courts have already ruled against this kind of "mechanical" application of the principles of ethnic equality. To me, it is a complete abuse of the term "reverse discrimination" if religious ministers apply this term in the context of "discrimination" against homosexuality in Hong Kong. There simply cannot be any conceivable possibility of any "affirmative action" being applied in Hong Kong to get organizations or institutions, whether government or private, to fix a "quota" or "ratio" for the admission of homosexual or lesbian students or employees in the relevant institutions vis-a-vis the number or proportion of non-homosexual or non-lesbian students or employees for the simple reason that unlike the case of ethnic minorities whose race can be easily checked and verified by looking at their birth certificates because it is something which all Hong Kong citizens are lawfully required to obtain within a certain period of their actual biological birth, it is most difficult in practice to tell if someone is definitely and objectively a 'homosexual" or a "lesbian", apart from their own "declaration" that they are so.  I do not know if the relevant religious ministers have actually studied the relevant literature before they use the term. If they have not, then I suggest that they do. To me, it seems quite irresponsible to use the expression "reverse discrimination"  for political or religious purposes without knowing their proper meaning or worse, if they do know it, to deliberately abuse it by using it in improper and an otherwise inapplicable context. This type of verbal "sleight of hand" or trickery is called "concept switching".

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no axe to grind. I am not a homosexual or bisexual and have absolutely no intention of becoming either. But I am deeply troubled by the stance of certain conservative and purportedly "Christian" groups ( I say "purported"  deliberately because to me Christians should be all loving and fair, like the God they say they worship) to further what I regard as fear mongering amongst not only their faithfuls but also amongst the general public against the idea of the homosexuals and lesbians getting their right not to be discriminated against in their daily lives in the sphere of their employment and education and the obtaining of the needed services by virtue of their sexual orientation. In passing the relevant legislation, we are not giving them any EXTRA rights. All that our government intends to do is to level the grounds for them ie. giving BACK to them certain rights that they have been UNJUSTLY ( UNFAIRLY) DEPRIVED  of, rights which every one else in Hong Kong already enjoys, but not them because of the perceived "prejudice" by certain members of our community against them as a minority group.