NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/ba/politics/8382

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky ba.politics:8382 ca.politics:10728 talk.politics.misc:70439
Path: sparky!uunet!biosci!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!jethro.Corp.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!bendenweyr!flar
From: [e-mail] (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Jan 93 02:19:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: flar@bendenweyr (Jim Graham)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Graham)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 53
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

[e-mail] (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Jim Graham) writes:
|>     >In the case of anti-discrimination in employment and housing
|>     >laws, the majority of society decides which they would
|>     >prefer:
|>     >
|>     >1. Any employer or property owner may discriminate against
|>     >any applicant for any reason. 2. An employer or property
|>     >owner may choose which of many applicants they employ/house
|>     >provided they do not use any of a short list of fixed
|>     >criteria in that decision. Currently that list usually
|>     >contains race, creed, etc.
|>     >
|>     >It seems that the majority of society would prefer the
|>     >consequences of case #2. They view the ignorant whining of
|>     >some employers or property owners as being less worthy of
|>     >consideration than the real needs of those who might be
|>     >discriminated against.
|>
|> The passage of the above laws DOES NOT indicate that the majority of
|> society approves of them. Indeed, the majority do NOT approve of them.
|> Colorado just affirmed that if you are really dense.

Nowhere did I state that I was using the passage of laws as the
basis for my statements.  It is my impression that the majority
of Americans actually do favor outlawing discrimination based on
race.

The Colorado case is irrelevant to the point I was making here.
I admit that in the small section of my posting that you quote
above, it is not clear that I was not including sexual orientation
in this part of the discussion.  But the very next paragraph talked
about adding it to that list and so should have implied to you that
I was only talking about the standard list of categories which every
state seems to have already outlawed as a basis for discrimination.
(i.e. race, creed, gender)

In the case of Colorado, they did not outlaw all laws controlling
the acceptable bases of discrimination, they were explicitly singling
out homosexuality (and bisexuality and a couple of other labels).
There may have been some vocal support from people who would not want
any anti-discrimination laws, but I believe that the majority who voted
for the Colorado amendment were doing so because they felt that
homosexuality in particular should not be considered an inappropriate
basis for discrimination.  Actually I feel that the majority voted
for the amendment because they had been scared into believing that
homosexuals were receiving "special rights" over and above the rights
they themselves had as heterosexuals.  And they would have voted for
a law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation if they
felt that the law could or would not be misused to give the minority
groups an unfair advantage.

                ...jim