So far, it does in fact end at chapter 1. You have failed to address the heterosexuality that is rampant in even the most conservative of workplace settings. Wedding rings - you say you don't notice them. Good for you. I do. Does that mean they're inappropriate in the workplace? Should heteros be prohibited from calling a significant other while in earshot of their co-workers, even if they're on break? Should company events, such as picnics and holiday parties, exclude spouses?
Everything I've described is a commonplace display of heterosexuality. Until you start advocating for the abolishment of all of that, your argument comes across as very one-sided. You can say the same thing many different ways, but that doesn't mean you've said more.
So please, give us chapter 2, and if you are unwilling to do so, stop taking offense to people reading what you're writing.
So until I advocate from your position I am incorrect? Hardly. And I don't take offense, I just know my OP is the first one he read and the first one that illceted a response. I advised him to keep reading and see if my position was clarified.
If you make this aspect of yourself a disruptive factor in a professional environment, and you are let go because of that....you're out of luck.
Point out to me where I said you cannot have the trappings of a gay person in the office? And don't cut a single line of text out from a paragraph to misrepresent what I am saying and suit the needs of your topic.
I don't think anyone should be let go simply because of their beliefs, their sexual practices or the gum they chew. I've said that several times in this thread. When it happens it should be fought with all the vigor and conviction that any injustice to human dignity should emote.
If you're expecting me to advocate everybody getting along and accepting each other, you're in La la land. It would be nice if that could happen, but it isn't going to happen.
I agree with your point about removing the trappings of heterosexuality as a way of balancing the scales but that's not even remotely feasible. Talking hypotheticals is alright in the interim, but change comes in gradual steps from within. If it is forced from without it becomes a much longer process in the key aspect of change, the minds of the people.