Homophobia
Laws can be structured to treat people differently if there is a valid reason for the distinction, such as a legitimate government interest. This means that the differing treatment must be based on factors that are relevant to the purpose of the law and not discriminatory. As long as the law serves a rational purpose and is not based on arbitrary or discriminatory factors, it can be considered constitutional under the equal protection clause.
no
Give a tribe name to get a proper answer. There is no such people as " red Indians" this is a discriminatory name.
racism
No, it is not discriminatory. Straight people, genuine transsexuals, and a number of other groups do not want LGBTQI2S representation nor inclusion.
Anti-discriminatory practise promotes the fairness of any service and the fact that everyone needs to be treated equally. It is important to promote these positive practises to ensure all service users are treated as individuals and in a positive way that considers their needs e.g. culture. For example, providing an anti-discriminatory environment in a school enables children to develop self-esteem and confidence as there is no favouritism or people treat differently.
they were treated very differently... very differently... very very differently... some people had to get whipped... whipped cream
I suspect that they are white southerners based on the wacky discriminatory laws that are passed.
The language used in this context is known as discriminatory or prejudiced language. It can perpetuate harmful stereotypes, reinforce unequal treatment, insult individuals or groups, exclude them from participation, and focus on superficial or irrelevant characteristics over more important ones.
Someone who is against people who think differently is intolerant.
Ecumenism. The problem is that people define 'within Christianity' differently.
Daoism or Taoism. They are both same thing they just are called differently sometimes. Now it is called Taoism but in ancient China it was called Daoism.