It was specifically in the context of criticizing someone who would be widely perceived as pro-gay. As in "I mostly support the same issues as this guy, but he's hurting his cause."

I'd be just as likely to say "I like black people, but <a notoriously criminal/amoral black guy> hurts the public image of black people and the cause of civil rights", sure.

I'm fine with Trump comparisons except please the 1980s Trump, not the current one.

> I'd be just as likely to say "I like black people, but <a notoriously criminal/amoral black guy> hurts the public image of black people and the cause of civil rights", sure.

Wow, I think you are hurting the cause that is your credibility.

Do you really think a member of a visible group acting badly doesn't hurt the overall image of that group? I agree individuals have every right to act as they please, but if you are the only e.g. Sikh in a Midwestern town, and no one there has ever met a Sikh, and you are a good person, people will generalize and believe Sikhs are good people. (This is why I as a white American in the Middle East would tip really well, be polite to everyone, help people who had broken down cars by the side of the road, etc.)

If you are a political activist campaigning for a cause (which drive through guy was), and you aren't aware that people will make generalizations based on your behavior, you will not be an effective campaigner. This is why e.g. Mormon missionaries dress well, are polite and friendly, etc.

If you are a member of a large group which is well represented in a population, you are less likely to be someone's only contact with that group, and thus generally less influential, but even then. This is why companies and organizations have policies about what members of that organization can do or say in uniform or when identifiable as a member, even when clearly off duty (so it couldn't be taken as an official statement).

There is something very important that you do not understand about people. I don't know why some people can't understand this easily. Maybe someday you'll have that moment when it clicks, and when you do, I think you may find yourself with lots of regret for your past ignorance. In the meantime maybe learn to see things from other people's perspectives instead of thinking what individuals who are different from you should act like.

Did you not look at the Chik-fil-a video?

Do you think that guy looked at things from the drive-through employee's perspective? Perhaps it was the only paying job she could get...

There is in fact a subtle difference between

"I have a great relationship with the blacks"

and "I like gay people a lot"

The difference is that Trump said "the blacks" whereas rdl said "gay people."

There is nothing inherently wrong with the statement "I have great relationships with black people," had Trump said that, and this is because it could be a factual statement. If Trump had 10 black friends, and he had a great relationship with 9/10 of them, then Trump could legitimately state that fact in the form of that sentence. Or who knows, maybe Trump has an ebony fetish that predisposes him to great relationships with the majority of black people he meets.

However, because he said "I have a great relationship with the blacks," Trump is stating that he treats black people as a single entity. He dehumanizes black people, because relationships aren't formed with "a people." They are formed with "a person." Forming many relationships with manual people qualifies you to make the statement "I have great relationships (plural) with blacks (plural)," which is perfectly legitimate. Forming a single relationship with many people is unnatural, so he is doing something wrong there.

The OP's statement is basically the same as the last example I gave ("I have great relationships with black people"). He was simply stating a fact of his overall (generalized, but subjective) opinion of his many experiences with many different gay people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

EDIT: To whomever downvoted me: feel free to let me know how what I said was wrong