It's easy to see because you are a bigot. The problem is that your characterization is all wrong. And that really is an interesting question; even throwing coins you should be able to find a head in there somewhere, but all you're showing us is ass. It's like the conversation about child labor laws. Why did the evil liberals pass them? It's not like people would exploit children, right? Well, except that's how it went the first time. What do I mean, the first time? Well, go back and look at how we treated children in the labor force before there were child labor laws. You'd be amazed at how many Americans don't know that part of of our history. Similarly, the reason we make these laws is because enough supremacists create the need. Your construction puts the judgment entirely in the creation of the laws, as if the bigotry and discrimination didn't exist. Think of it this way: Starting with indigenous peoples and blacks, the American heritage is a running string of hatreds. Even people who generally stand together today as "white" fought over "racial" issues. Jews, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Catholics in general, hispanics, women. It is as if we cannot learn, as a society, that hatred is wrong, so instead keep cycling through a list, looking for a coincidence of the right time for hatred and the right people to hate. Questions of discrimination protections would not arise without a question of discrimination. In the end, the argument comes down to being mad at the government for not endorsing really bad behavior. You're unable to establish your "dual standard" in any remotely real context. Hey, is that another "dual standard"? One in which people taking part in a discussion must meet disparate standards? You know, like anti-discrimination has to be impossibly perfect, and halfwitted bigotry only needs to exist? I mean, we get that much, and the thing is that if you could be honest about your disability―be it developmental or delusional or antisocial or whatever―this community is entirely capable of making certain accommodations. After all, look around, there are people here who think anything but the most concise of posts equal trolling, whether or not that idea of concision is even communicatively functional. And as it is, you've taken far more words than the five required to simply say, "I am an angry bigot!" And that part we already knew. But beyond that, it would probably be helpful if you started making sense. And here's a helpful hint: When you're trying to establish a concept in the discourse, such as an alleged "dual standard", it helps if (A) that dual standard can be objectively demonstrated with evidence, and (B) you actually do so. Another thing that would help is to state the principle clearly, so that anyone else reading might have a clue what you're on about. But since you can't define this dual standard coherently, and can only sputter spittle and fury, nobody actually knows. As far as we can tell, the horrible dual standard you're talking about is that one more target of Christian hatred is about to come out of the crosshairs. In which case I would remind the Christians pushing for discrimination laws that they really do need to stop calling themselves Christians. Here's something more like a dual standard: "My rights are a Christian are violated as long as that person's rights are intact!" We've been hearing versions of that for years: • "My First Amendment rights as a Christian are violated as long as that author is not censored." • "My equal rights as a Christian are violated as long as I can't fire that person from his civil service job because I, as his publicly paid civil service manager, find him unsatisfactory to my Christianity." • "My equal rights as a Christian are violated as long as she has access to medical treatment that offends my assertion of Christianity." • "My equal rights as a Christian are violated as long as I cannot refuse service to people with other religious outlooks I find unsatisfactory." At some point, it looks as if the Christianity is tailored to suit the fancy. There is a reason Christ is so absent from this iteration of Christian faith. Look, I'm not black. Neither am I female. But I am gay, and I am eurasian, and I did grow up in a backwater. That is to say, I don't hold much of a market share, but I've taken my licks over the years. And I mention this because in recent years traditionally empowered blocs have been laboring to cast themselves as disempowered minorities suffering some kind of bigotry. Whatever the reason for this fantasy, I can assure them that it is not fun, is not rewarding; that is, it's not as glamorous as they think. But they seem somewhat envious of the care we show our neighbors' injuries, so they want to be similarly injured because otherwise they cannot reconcile their own desire for human compassion. And in this particular context it really is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. While it is always a risky endeavor to psychoanalyze any collective in a singular context, there is a strangeness about this particular iteration of Christian faith that seems to say, "Go away go away go away! Hey, why am I so lonely?" And when one's identity is to stand apart from other people in order to harm them, it's true, the rest of us just don't have much sympathy for their long dark nights of the soul.