From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:03:46 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <JXLXTB2w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:


>	>What did happen is that a Federal Appeals Court invalidated the
>	>discharge of a gay soldier because he hadn't actually done any 
>	>overt act.  Hardly what you claim though.

>If "being homosexual" is a violation, making a public statement of such
>would be an overt act.  If you don't believe me, make a joke about a
>bomb at an airport.

What the court found is that merely expressing a preference for
homosexual sex without any evidence that you engaged in it is
protected speech.  Making jokes about bombs in airports is not
protected speech because the state has a very compelling reason in
prohibiting it, namely public safety.

I noticed you still haven't justified your original claims, that the
Supreme Court overturned Georgia's sodomy statute, and that no state
prohibits homosexual behavior.


>	>the segregation was not mandated, it was private, customary racism 
>	>enforced by peer pressure, habit and prejudice.

>Sister Souljah (leading spokesman of this group's thought process), is no
>advocate of integration.  Don't blame ME for the lack of desire for inte-
>gration today.  I'm all in favor of it, I'm no White Nationalist.  I
>publicly condemn White Separatists, along with Black Separatists, the
>first chance I get.

Hey Stromer, wake up, the topic is: Is private discrimination
prohibited by the Constitution (as you claimed)?  Since you can't seem
to defend your position, I'll assume you now admit that you were wrong.
Which leaves us back to the original question: do you beleive that
discrimination against gays should be prevented by statute, just as
discrimination against racial or religious groups current is
prohibited by statute?

To which you respond:


>								  
>	>in the absence of legislation, gays are just as vulnerable as 
>	>were blacks in the old South.

>Maybe homosexuality should be declared to be a religion, then it would fall 
>under First Amendment protection...

Another non-sequitur.  Private individuals can discriminate on the
basis of religion too, in the absence of legislation to the contrary.
The First Amendment just prohibits government discrimination.

>The fact that homosexuality is aberrant 
>behavior doesn't make it morally wrong, just like taking drugs.  People have 
>the right to be aberrant if they so choose, in my book, whether it's being  
>homosexual, taking heroin, gambling, visiting a hooker, or whatever.  

>As long as consenting adults use neither force nor fraud to do something, 
>it should be legal.              ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ 

Stromer, can't you stay on the topic, even for one paragraph?  The
question is whether it is currently legal for private individuals to
discriminate against gays.  And the answer is yes, whether gay sex is
legal or not.  Do you support this state of affairs?


>This all goes back to what I've been griping about all along.  If we allow
>the government to control individual liberties, we'll have to deal with
>these kinds of laws.  Very few readers of this newsgroup have advocated
>the RIGHT of an individual to take drugs inside his OWN BEDROOM, which I 
>feel is a basic right, just as consenting adults in the bedroom should be
>able to do whatever the hell they wat to.


You were asked to explain why you opposed extending civil rights laws
to gays.  Instead of explaining yourself, you incoherently babbled on
about the Constitution, Sister Souljah, and drugs in the bedroom.

You are really starting to sound schizoprenic.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:10884 misc.headlines:6994 alt.activism:18583