I do not have the sufficient examples to presume that these occurences are endemic to those other events in the same way as these displays are at pride events. It's about the scale, and the repercussions if any. Any event can have one-offs if it grows large enough, but only one has a direct causal and consistent link.
.
And my point wasn't that there would be outrage for the same occurence, but the fact that this occurence would not arise naturally, same as the other events you listed. None of them have anything to do with sexuality of any kind, and these problems are due to scale, not any kind of intent.
.
This is a funny point, but what is stopping the attendees from showing up in suits, for instance? Doesn't make them any less gay. Doesn't change the fact that they can celebrate who they are. The message is still the same, but the degenerate showcases aren't there.

What rights do they not have, and is there no federal legislation to override it in this particular regard? And if there is actual ongoing discrimination is those states, how come it is not a raging shitstorm online right now?

@guest_
But are there common points of morality between a majority of people? There certainly are, and one of those would be that we don't allow explicit shit in public so that children don't get influenced. If you can't view the argument through a different lens, then view it through the lense of harm done.
.
That is without even going into an argument about whether there is a single objective truth of the matter.
.
fyi, for anyone interested as to what I'm talking about above, it's this comment chain: funsubstancecom/fun/537305/never-thought-of-it-that-way/?last_comment=3199317#comment3199317
.
Insert a comma for the com part, since funsub no longer allows links.

The foundations of Christianity and Islam are not so different. Only one of them went through centuries of evolution, free thought and eventual development of science, and the second one remained as one step above true barbarism.
.
And one more thing. The Christian conservatives of the 1950s US are an atypical phenomenon. Don't judge so much by their standards. They were just as authoritarian as those who we critique and fight now.

And I am sure you can give me plenty of examples of Muslims that are not like what I wrote above. But they are much more like us. They have accepted the Enlightenment values of liberty. They have become apostates in spirit, if not in formality. Because if one agrees that becoming an apostate of Islam should be punishable by death, they are not liberal. They do not hold those same values as we do.

And you bring in a very good comparison with Islam. Their values, their morals, are in fact very different. Islam is not only a religion, it is an ideology, a culture. There can be no law that is not Islamic law. There can be no morality outside of Islam. It is an all-encompassing, ideal fascist theocracy.
.
It is the "ethical state". Which tells you how to live your life, not only in public, but in private too. It is the absolute scourge, the fusion of religious fervor, cast-iron morals, hatred towards the outsiders, and the imperialistic tendencies of old. Islam never went through an Enlightenment, and the values of the Islamic culture - a culture informed first and foremost by religion, never changed.
Their highest value is devotion. Not freedom, equality, or security. Only blind, mad devotion.

Now, here comes the interesting part.
First off, don't assume that when I am explaining what things are like that I am advocating for it and assuming it is a good thing.
Second, morality and religion are separate. Which means the morality of today was informed by the religious foundation in the past, but it can now exist in a secular form, completely outside the church as an entity.
.
Which is a good thing, mind you. But since the question was "where it came from?", this is the response. And the thing is, the interaction between religion and state is irrelevant. In fact, you're right in that it should not happen. But it does not mean the we do not derive our morality from it, at least in part.
The second part is the Enlightenment, the ideals of liberty, and human rights. But it runs parallel to morality and religion. Both can coexist, and US is living proof of that.

Took me a while to get back to this, so let's go.
So, I would guess that in the way you answered you received about -0.3 points compared to the average on all of these. My points by comparison are: care 1.5 equality 1.2 equity 2.4 autonomy 2.3 loyalty 2.1 authority 2.0 purity 1.4. So by comparison to average scores that puts me into the center-right quadrant.
.
A quick response to your first retort - currently in the western world gay people have the same human rights as anyone else, so there is no reason for an activist group to still be functioning as they did before that was the case. Simple.

Of course it is, but he's an sjw, what else could we expect.

Third point - where does morality come from. This one is very easy. From Christianity. Whether you like it or not, this is where the moral framework of the western world has originated. And you don't have to believe in a god to see it or follow it. Our laws, our sense of what is right and wrong is based upon the moral foundations of Christianity with the Enlightenment values of individualism and liberty.
If our morality was based purely in logic, with nothing else behind it, there would be no social stigma for doing something that is considered wrong, because there would be no right or wrong. Only methods to get what you want.
I;d like you to go to yourmorals.org take the first test there and post the numerical values you get for your foundations. Because there is one in particular which is relevant to this.

Second point - your sexuality does not define your worth or status. Since the relationship is yet again not causal, and we treat LGBT people same as everyone else, they have no exclusive rights. They have the same universal individual rights as everyone else, and nothing more. Which means you can't argue for the exclusivity of pride events to be restricted to them, which you do if not in practice, at least in principle.
And before you try to pull up a different example - sexuality is not causal, so don't even try to bring in a causal relationship as an example.

English is not my first language, but as you could probably tell, I am rather proficient in it.
.
So let me break this down. My first point - your sexuality does not define your views. Since the relationship is not causal, and you can clearly have LGBT people with all kinds of political views, you cannot class them as a group. Because there is nothing that their sexuality determines about them as a person. So any time you collectivise those people as a group with set beliefs and wants, it is a false argument, maybe even classing as a fallacy.

hammerhead is just a fucking troll, same as dcottingham. In all my interactions with him, he came across as an extremely rude cunt, never adequately explained his positions, slighted and did not address my arguments, and always was the first to throw insults.
So fuck dealing with that guy. If he will not argue in good faith, and he never will, ignore the dumbass.

That does not make it justified. And again, is our morality the same as of ancient Roman Empire? No, so what is your argument.
.
And let me just clarify that I am talking exclusively about public locations. So basically the streets and public use facilities. In any private location (house, hotel, an establishment that allows fucking in front of other people), I don't care what people do.

And don't even get started on "oh, but why couldn't the straight pride parade do the same thing and be as bad". Because the people who are going to be attending it aren't degenerates who use it as a cover for exposing themselves in public. Again, let's wait and see, it will only prove my point.
.
Because you seem to be incapable of not derailing the conversation, I will stick to one question at a time.
.
If LGBT people are no less human than others, why should we allow them any exclusive privileges? Sexuality is not causal, and gives us no reason to treat them differently, so why argue for anything else.
.
btw, I will tag some people just to let them see the discussion, because this is way too interesting to pass up. @xvarnah, @firmlee_grasspit, @popsy

The examples of context you have given do not compare. I don't know how I can make this point any clearer. It is morally less acceptable to perfrom sexual acts in public than litter or be loud and disruptive. And under no context of a public event should there be license to break that rule.
.
And again, you have missed my point. Your religion, politics and philosophy do in fact define you. They are what defines how you think, what your opinions are. You motherfucker will accuse me of cherry picking, when my argument was: "your sexuality does not define your views, worth or outlook on life". So what did you do? Pick out "worth" from the sentence, as if my argument was that LGBT people are any less human because of their sexuality. And ignore the rest of the words.
.
So shove your fucking complaints up your fucking arse and answer the questions.

Well, I suppose because most people agree.

And again, I just... @guest_, what the fuck is this?
"Every day for the last couple centuries has been straight pride day." - How the fuck can you possibly say that? Is there a "straight" community? Do these people share anything, ANYTHING that would make you create a collective out of them? Do they see every day as a straight pride day?
.
With one sentence, you have collectivized an overwhelming majority of the world's population, politicized them, and ascribed an intention to them that you can never prove is true.
So you essentially lied. And my god, you seem like a rabid sjw in this rant. I truly hope this is not what your opinion is.

This is a collectivist line of logic. Because what this is, is an argument for group rights. An argument for a group of people to possess a special right based on an immutable characteristic.
This is a cancer for any society that strives for equality under the law, a wrecking ball aimed straight at one of the foundations of the best, most liberal societies of the world.
.
So a right (not in the strictly legal sense), must be universal. Either everyone has it, and everyone can hold whatever pride parade they want, or nobody can.
You have confirmed that you are not against it, yet you defend the exclusivity of such events. Why?

Also... I just read through what he wrote again, and I'm just... bewildered I guess?
"So people don’t think about gay people so much." - Why should we? Why the fuck should I busy myself with thinking about a person's sexuality??? How the fuck is that different from thinking about a person's race or sex? You are literally dividing people cased on inherent characteristics, which in the circumstances mentioned above would be racist and sexist respectively. By the definition of the word.
.
We don't treat people based on their race, we don't treat people based on their sex (unless it is causal). We treat people like individuals.

That was directed at guest_ since he is the one with the tendency for long-winded discussions, and he conflated the topic in question with sexualized advertising and acts which are permitted on specific occasions, such as littering in some capacity or being loud and disruptive as for sporting events.