NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/co/general/2419

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 4.9 KB

Xref: sparky co.general:2419 rec.skiing:9300 rec.travel:17411
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!zstewart
From: [e-mail] (Zhahai Stewart)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <1993Jan4.164151.2 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 01:42:47 GMT
Lines: 79

>|>        I think it's pretty "special" that a heterosexual can't
>|>        be fired for sexual orientation, yet a homosexual can.
>
>That is pure B***S**T.  You obviously are not in a position to do any
>hiring/firing.  If you were, you would know that the ONLY grounds for
>firing a person are work performance or general layoff.  If you fire
>somebody for ANY REASON other than work performance, you open yourself
>personally and your employer to a lawsuit.  If you do fire for performance,
>you'd better have damn good documentation of said performance for a
>period of no less than 6 months.

Sorry, but you are incorrect in general.  If you employer imposes such a
restriction on you, good.  And if you are naive enough to think that there
is legal ground external to the company, maybe that's good too.

>Gays currently have as many rights as anyone else, even without special
>constitutional protection.  If somebody is fired for having long hair,
>or long fingernails, or homosexuality, that person has good grounds for
>a lawsuit.  Don't believe me, ask your attorney.

I have asked attorneys.  Obviously you haven't.

>The issue is whether to grant special constitutional protection to a group
>of people who have no externally detectable differences from the general
>population.  It's quite different from granting protections to minorities
>whose minority status is obvious from the color of their skin.

You are rather confused.  There was no proposal to grant any constitutional
protection to anybody, based on anything.  There was a proposal to prohibit
gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in Colorado from making use of any
non-discrimination laws (local or state), that is, a constitutional amendment
singling out a named group for less rights than everybody else.  It passed.
If it had failed, the status quo would have continued: no mention of sexual
orientation nor homosexuals in the constitution (neither protection for, nor
restrictions against).  You obviously don't know the issue here at all.

Secondly, the cities whose non-discrimination laws the amendment aimed at
overturning did not grant protections to anybody on the basis of skin color,
etc.  They had non-discrimination laws which protected everybody, every
single citizen, not just one group.  Nobody had any legal preferences over
anybody else.  For example, it was illegal to fire somebody on the basis of
their sexual orientation, whether it is straight, gay, or bisexual.  As such,
there was no need of any "identifiable characteristic", beyond being a local
citizen.  Neither did being a minority or majority matter; all citizens had
exactly the same rights.  Your whole bit about "no externally detectable
differences" is completely and totally irrelevant.  I'm sorry, but you are
regurgitating the right wing propoganda, perhaps fourth hand or something;
your argument was part of the campaign literature, and some folks mindlessly
picked up on it as a "good argument" in ignorance, because it sounds good.
Unfortunately, it is meaningless.

By the way, religion was yet another of the characteristics on which one is
not supposed to discriminate (and yes, religious institutions are exempted).
Even if some cannot grasp the fundamental distinction between non-discrimination
and special group status, if their internal parity was still operational, they
should realize that Baptists don't all wear tattoos, yet this doesn't mean that
religious non-discrimination is infeasible because of no external marks.

Nor do Republicans.

That whole line of "reasoning" is so bogus from so many sides that it won't
float except in fantasy waters.

>How can a homosexual claim discrimination unless that individual makes
>a public issue about his/her sexuality?  Doing so is inappropriate in
>the workplace whether you're homosexual or heterosexual.
>
>And now back to the more mundane - my apologies to rec.skiing netters.
>
>Boycott Colorado!  Make my ski day!
>
>
>Dave Buehmann         Voice:    [phone]
>Intergraph (Dazix)    Fax:      [phone]
>5101 Spine Road       Internet: [e-mail]
>Boulder, CO  80301    UUCP: Broken for no technical reason whatsoever
>