From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:24:24 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1992Nov8.173235.356@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
>How about the following exchange:
>"Why are you firing me?"
>"OUT!"

>It is my impression that this is entirely legal.  For one job I held, I signed
>a contract saying that employment was a relationship that could be terminated
>at any time by either of the two parties involved-- I could stop working
>for them whenever I chose, and they could stop paying me whenever THEY chose.
>Provided the person being canned is a white male, is the employer obligated
>to justify their decision?

My limited understanding is that most employment relationships are
"employment at will", i.e., the employer can terminate the employee at
any time for any/no reason.

However -- many jobs are *not* in this category, e.g., union and government
jobs.  I think the idea is that unless some other set of rules is in force
(like union or govt) then it is employment at will.

What #2 said is that EVEN WHEN there is a set of rules that make it impossible
to just say "get out, you're fired", it is legal to use homosexuality as
a valid reason.  It used to be up to each set of rules to determine this (e.g.,
the law in Boulder making this an invalid reason).

The whole "special privilege" thing is a smokescreen, intended to divert
attention from the real issue, namely, an anti-gay agenda.  There were
no special privs to my mind, and if some cropped up that people felt were
unfair, they could be voted down individually.  Even so, why should we
vote against special privs for just ONE group?  Why wasn't #2 worded to
be generic, "no special privleges for anyone"?

No, sorry, this one is just too clear to miss the point.  It is meant to
deprive the rights of a certain group.

Not that it should or does matter, but I'm not gay -- I voted against
#2, and will vote to repeal it, simply because it denies rights to
a group.  I believe we should all be afforded the same rights.  This
includes the right to file a law suit when we feel we've been wronged,
even if it turns out we have no legal grounds to stand on.  But it is
just plain wrong to prevent someone from filing suit on grounds of
ANY kind of discrimination.  Let the courts decide if one case of
discrimination or another is just.

Passing #2 is worse than "sad", it's scary.  Until someone proves otherwise,
I will continue to believe those who voted for #2 are in the same category
-- displaying the same attitude of lack of concern for other people --
as those in Germany who felt there was nothing wrong with how the
Jews/Gypsies/Gays/Communists/etc. were treated in the 1930s and 40s.

(I'm not exactly saying you're a Nazi sympathizer if you voted for #2 --
you are just as bad IF you voted for it because you dislike gays; but
you are WORSE if voted for it because you're ambivalent, and just didn't
care because it wasn't YOUR group being denied rights.)

The whole point of this country is that people are free to do as they
please.  What the "no on 2" people failed to do is educate voters that
#2 is contrary to freedom; what the "yes on 2" people did was merely
slick salesmanship, taking advantage of the fact that most people are
more against differences in people than for them.  (I believe this is
a genetic trait -- pre-historic man was more likely to survive if he was
wary of the unknown than not.)   In other words, it takes higher order
mental effort to accept people for what they are; while going against
people who are differnt is more instinctive (though still "wrong" by
today's standards).

Unfortunately, what worked for humans and pre-humans millions of years
ago just doesn't work in the non-natural thing we've created called society.
(And unless you think we were better off as hunter-gatherers than we are
now, we need to *consciously* fight against the instinct.)

Repeal #2!
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general