From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:41:25 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <-6_p!yk.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <96963@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>Not really. Employers should be able to control behavior on
>>their property and their property only.
>>...
>>You know that's not what I meant. I meant that if I am you
>>boss I have no say in what you can do with your girlfriend to
>>qualify for employment, or that what you do with your
>>girlfriend has bearing on my business.
>>
>>otherwise, I would be invading your privacy.

>Actually, if you were taken in a literal fashion, YOU would be invading
>MY privacy and interfering with MY Freedom Of Association.

Right. Which is why I say that any interference with one's private affairs
away from work is initiation of coercion.

>I can agree, or disagree, to accept employment on any moral basis whatsoever
>(moral means I'm adult and the property involved is all properly owned etc.).

But can you agree NOT to ask any questions about a prospective or current
employee's private life? After all, if you do, you are interfering with
THEIR privacy and THEIR Freedom of Association, like you said above.

>Of course, most employment opportunities do not care much about what your
>girlfriends (or equivalent) do or are -- unless they are in a competitive
>company and you are in a very competitive industry.

Competitive? How so?

>The Miss America pageant certainly cared what the one winner did with her
>"girlfriend"/fellow model -- they didn't like what she had done in her
>spare time (the lesbian theme photos).

But someone invaded the contestant's privacy by making these photos
public. Someone invaded the contestant's freedom of association.

>Or perhaps I want to work for the NRA-ILA, or a pro-choice organization, or
>a tobacco company. They might care one hell of a lot if my girlfriend worked
>for HCI or a anti-abortion group or a ban-smoking lobby.

How are they going to find out without invading your (and her) privacy?
without interfering with your freedom of association?

>So in short, don't YOU interfere with MY freedom to seek work on any basis
>whatsoever.

Yes, I do realize we're at a standoff here.

>>You know what is problematic about defining EVERYTHING except
>>government as private? If you do that, you should be able to
>>sunbathe in the nude on your property no matter whether
>>someone else can see you and objects.

>So? Some people want to walk around on PUBLIC streets holding hands and
>acting affectionate with members of THE SAME SEX!!!!! Or they sit on their
>lawns making out with members of the same sex!!!!

But the street is publicly owned. I was talking about doing stuff on your
own property. Making out on their lawns is a better comparison.

>>If you do that, businesses should be totally unregulatable.
>>No usury laws, no public health laws, no nothing...

>So? Most states don't have usury laws. And I certainly haven't much
>application of public health laws. Note that most laws like this do about
>nothing to "help" anybody except some private interest lobby.

So are you saying usury laws are immoral?

If there were no public health laws, companies could sell products they
knew were potentially harmful without informing the public. If companies
are considered totally private, then they can do whatever they want, without
regulation.

Phil:
>>>[Voluntary compliance to antti-discrimination for tax benefits]
>>>is the crux of creeping fascism.

>>But it is voluntary and mutually agreed upon. If you don't
>>like the deal, don't sign the contract.

>Uh, the taxes are NOT voluntary. You make all taxation totally voluntary
>and then I'd agree. With glee. And much gusto.

The taxes aren't, but the incentive is.

If we were to abolish mandatory payment of taxes, how many people do
you think would pay anyhow?

>>>Tax incentives are nothing more than a variant of a
>>>protection racket.

>>I guess I had better stop donating to charities.

>Suit yourself.

Charities? A protection racket?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5824 ca.politics:8397