home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / soc / motss / 48279 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-18  |  1.4 KB
  1. Xref: sparky soc.motss:48279 alt.politics.homosexuality:7361 co.politics:2182
  2. Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!ncar!claven!woods
  4. From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
  5. Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
  6. Message-ID: <1992Nov18.230852.16468@claven.ucar.edu>
  7. Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
  8. References: <1992Nov18.174208.13010@claven.ucar.edu> <BxxHEI.LI@fc.sde.hp.com>
  9. Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:08:52 GMT
  10. Lines: 18
  11.  
  12. In article <BxxHEI.LI@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
  13. >Greg Woods (woods@claven.ucar.edu) wrote:
  14. >: I don't see that #2 prohibits an employer from
  15. >: establishing an anti-discrimination policy, and enforcing it
  16. >: internally, if they choose to.
  17. >
  18. >Unfortunately, the employer in this case is the State of Colorado, which is one
  19. >of the entities specifically forbidden from enforcing any such policy.
  20.  
  21. I think we're getting into some legal technicalities here, but I still
  22. don't think that Amendment #2 says anything that would force the
  23. state to discriminate against gays, nor even anything that would say
  24. they can't set an internal policy against such discrimination. All it
  25. says is that they cannot put this into law. But a state law and an internal
  26. policy of state goverment are different things. I don't think that Amendment
  27. 2 as written says anything about the latter.
  28.  
  29. --Greg
  30.