From: mfox@fanfare.mv.us.adobe.com (Martin Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:00:31 GMT
Reply-To: mfox@adobe.com
Organization: Adobe Systems, Inc.


>>>The 14th amendment is equal protection before the law. The
>>>Colorado amendment (quoted at the end of this article, thanks
>>>for posting it) seems to force Colorado local governments to
>>>comply with the 14th amendment by not giving some groups
>>>more-than-equal protection before the law.
>>
>>Mr. Clueless, Does the term "de facto" mean anything to you?
>>In The united states, white, straight males have de facto
>>more than equal protection. If you can not see this, then I suggest
>>to you that it is time to wake up.
>

Michael Linksvayer responds:

>I've taken my stimulants for the day, thank you. Show me how
>white, straight males have more than equal protection _before the
>law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
>people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
>advantages. 

(Most straight people do not appear to be aware that there are sodomy laws
in place in about 50% of states in the U.S. Straight people in these
states have the legal advantage of being able to kiss their SO's without
committing a felony.)

Stating that two people have equal rights is moot if one of those people
is not able to claim those rights. Anti-discrimination laws exist to 
allow people to enforce their rights, i.e. to ensure that the rights
people can exercise *in principle* can be exercised *in practice*.

>My point is that disallowing legal claims of
>discrimination on the basis of sexuality does not make anyone less
>than equal before the law - anyone can still make claims based on
>any form of discrimination that is mentioned by the law,
>regardless of their sexuality.

Colorado Amendment 2 does not disallow legal claims of discrimination
on the basis of sexuality. It disallows legal claims of discrimination
based on homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism. This means that a
straight person can claim discrimination on the basis of being heterosexual
but a gay/bi/lesbian cannot claim discrimination on the basis of being
gay/bi/lesbian. As Carl Kadie writes:

> To me this, this is like prohibiting Jews from making claims of
> discrimination on the basis of religion while still protecting
> Catholics, athiests, and Protestants.

Don't you find it odd that Amendment 2 targets a specific subset of
the population?

Anyway, you make a good point by separating out the violation of a person's
rights from the reason for that violation. If someone is fired from their
job for being bisexual you seem to imply that they can still claim that
they were unfairly dismissed without reference to the fact that they are
bisexual. This would make the claimant's case exceedingly difficult. If
your boss were to walk in the room and say "You're fired because you are
gay" you would be able to claim an unfair dismissal but would not be able
to state the alleged reason for that dismissal. I'm not sure how such
cases are actually tried but I find it difficult to imagine that it is
easy to prosecute a charge of unfair treatment without providing a
basis for that claim.

But that is neither here nor there. The real problem with Amendment 2
is that if your boss were to walk into the room and say "You're fired
because you are straight" you *would* be able to claim unfair dismissal
*based on sexuality*. Gay/Bi/Lesbian people cannot do this under 
Amendment 2; this amendment is discriminating against them.

Martin Fox
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality