Gays were killed during the Orlando shooting. But despite what everyone says, they gay community wasn't a target.
We straight people just want to feel good about ourselves by saing "poor things, here I am going to light a building with your gay colors" to you, while in fact this was an attack against the United States.

>>6415385
Gay people were the target. That's why he used gay people in a gay club as the dictionary definition of a target

>>6415387
I said the gay community wasn't the tar target. The Pulse customers were effectively the targets, but as citizens of the US, not as gay people.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/14/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/
He knew that club because he visited it for "personal reasons" (you know what I mean). But he also scouted Disney World. Now it's obvious he crossed the later off his list because there was too much security and it would have been to easy for people to find hiding places. But if it had committed the attack there would we have say this was a specific attack on kids and american families?

After the Bataclan attack did we say this was a specific attack on rock music fans? No, instead the band is now banned from 2 french festivals, because after everything one of the musician went through he said things on muslims, and that's apparently worse than being a terrorist.

That's the real difference. You enjoy a victim status, a privilege, other don't and this gives you more freedom and protection than anyone else.

>>6415438
>He knew that club because he visited it for "personal reasons" (you know what I mean).
He was a gay man with a gf. Not unreasonable he was self hating and wanted to lash out against out of the closet gays.
>But if it had committed the attack there would we have say this was a specific attack on kids and american families?
Yes because that place is catered to all demographics
>After the Bataclan attack did we say this was a specific attack on rock music fans?
No. Because there has never been anyone in the history of the world that has had that motive and there would have been no reason to assume so.

When someone is of a religion who's text say homophobic things, is in the closet, and attack gay people at a place created by and catered towards gay people, it's not unreasonable to assume he did targeted they community.
>other don't and this gives you more freedom and protection than anyone else.
When did blacks, asians, whites, jews, trans, sikhs and everyone else who's been specifically targeted by bigots lose this ability?

>>6415499
>He was a gay man with a gf. Not unreasonable he was self hating and wanted to lash out against out of the closet gays.

Well that's what you imagine. I can also imagine he went on an Elliot Rodger rampage because nobody wanted to give him the D.

>>6413365
>Woman driver

There's a shock