NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/ba/politics/8283

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 5.2 KB

Xref: sparky ba.politics:8283 ca.politics:10644 talk.politics.misc:69453
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
From: [e-mail] (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups... (Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:47:37 GMT
Lines: 120

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (coram populo) writes:
    >>[e-mail] (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>>>In Georgia, they have anti-sodomy laws. Which is a way of
    >>>>saying "We, the State, are going to tell you two (or N)
    >>>>consenting adults what you can or can not do".
    >>>>
    >>>>In California, they try to have AB-101 laws, Which is a way
    >>>>of saying "We, the State, are going to tell you two (or N)
    >>>>consenting adults what you can or can not do".
    >>>>
    >>>>The two states, and those two laws, are the two sides of the
    >>>>same damn coin.
    >>>>
    >Not quite... the sodomy laws come from (well who knows where
    >since they are irrational) but we will say from religious
    >pressures, and obviously people who are afraid of what other
    >people might be doing.
    >
    >AB-101 attempts to make sure that the civil rights acts are
    >extended to everyone.

AB-101 DESTROYS the civil rights of many people -- such as landlords and
employers. AB-101 is a law thought of by people that are ALSO afraid of
what other people may be doing.

Many people find the thought of two males fucking disgusting.

Other people find, say, a devout Christian NOT renting a room to a homosexual
because "it's a sin in the Bible" also disgusting.

Now, either BOTH cases are valid, or BOTH case are invalid.


Please respond to the following:

A: I'd like to have sex with you.        A: I'd like to rent your room.
B: No thanks, you're not what I want.    B: No thanks, you're not what I want.
A: Oh well, too bad.                     A: Discrimination!!!!


    >>>>Which is why it is refreshing to see the Colorado voters
    >>>>start to put a stop to this nonsense of "victimology".
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >Yes- coercion at it's best. The Colorado amendment is
    >nonsense. Especially when it points out particular sets of
    >people. As a point, it appears that heterosexual could get
    >special treatment laws past if they want. If fact it has the
    >line-
    >
    >NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
    >ORIENTATION.
    >
    >I do not see anything here about heterosexuals, do you?

Nope. Of course, as you well know, there are no known laws that attempt
to protect, say, live white hetereosexual males on ant law books in the
land.

However, I would fully support changing that line to "ANY GROUP, ANY TIME,
ANY PLACE". I.e., include ALL groups that now receive preferential
treatment (blacks, Indians, females, handicapped, etc.) AND white males
and so on.

    >Therefore this is already a special status law, in a reverse
    >sense. It does not close the loop hole if someone is
    >straight.

Let's close that loophole then.


    >And then it goes on to state-
    >
    >[...] municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
    >or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
    >whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
    >practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be
    >the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to
    >have or claim any minority status, quota preferences,
    >protected status or claim of discrimination.
    >
    >And so again we see that it might be very possible for
    >heterosexuals to get all of the above things that are being
    >denied to a set of people strictly based on their sexual
    >orientation-
    >
    >What non-sense. It is the height of folly and stupidity...
    >
    >But of course those Coloradans are doing the right thing
    >according to you...
    >
    >So this means by inference that you are aligned with and in
    >support of the TFVC? Since they are the people who pushed and
    >pushed to get this amendment in place.

Oh no. Just because Hitler, you, and me are all against say, mistreatment of
small cute puppies doesn't mean we agree on anything else.

But I notice you are beginning to at least address the issue, which is,
nobody but nobody should get preferential treatment.

Remember, if (for example) YOU want to fuck whatever, then HE gets to rent to
whatever.

Every single thinsg that the Colorado law struck against ("to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
discrimination.") are names for special, coercive treatements -- things
that require under coercive threat of law poepl to do things (hire, rent, treat)
they otherwise wouldn't.

Coloradans prevented yet another Professional Victim(tm) group from getting
on the Coerciev Gravy Train(tm).




--
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)