From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Anti-discrimination (was Re: why don't you just read soc.motss)
Keywords: blah blah
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:51:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Apr7.035029.3955@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:
> In article <10340@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> |> In article <1992Apr3.050128.15157@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:
> 
# [Clayton's *artful* dodge of my Christian Radio analogy is deleted.]

Artful dodge?  No, you were largely correct.  Why should I disagree
with you?

# |# # In most cases. Nevertheless, with regards to the actual topic of this
# |# # thread (which was the appropriateness of anti-discrimination law and the
# |# # extension of the law to cover sexual orientation), I am prohibited by
# |# # existing law from refusing to hire (or rent to) a Christian solely
# |# # because they're `filthy, disgusting {insert-offensive-slur-here} and I
# |# # hate hate hate them.' (I'm pretty certain I'm not allowed to discriminate
# |# # on the basis of religion.)
# |# 
# |# I happen to think that such laws have no place in our society, with
# |# the exception of the government.  It's should be none of the government's
# |# business who you hire or rent to.
# 
# Yeah, I know your position against anti-discrimination law. I'm trying to
# advance the idea that you have other reasons for opposing anti-discrimination
# laws specifically aimed at protecting homosexuals.

And you would be wrong.  I will agree that my anger about the homosexual
community's support for fascism makes me more willing to fight a
law aimed specifically at helping them -- but I would have the same
irritation if the law prohibited discrimination based on heterosexual
promiscuity.  It's none of the government's business!

# |# # The law seems to draw a distinction between religious discrimination
# |# # and refusing to do business with someone for more innocuous reasons. This
# |# # is because there is an ocean of difference between ``I won't sell to you
# |# # because you don't meet my reasonable requirements,'' and ``I won't sell
# |# # to you because you're a God-fearing, white, Christian, heterosexual
# |# # male...'' The fact that I ``hate hate hate'' you is indicative of my
# |# # motives for refusing to business with you, and is important only because
# |# # it illustrates why my requirement is `unreasonable.'
# |# 
# |# How about, "I won't do business with 'misogynists'."  We allow
# |# that distinction, for some reason.  Why should we allow you to do
# |# that?  Obviously, it's because you are filled with hatred for
# |# misogynists. :-)
# 
# I submit that you would not be motivated to work to defeat a bill that
# would explicitly disallow housing and employment discrimination against
# misogynists without effecting any other changes in existing anti-
# discrimination law, but that you have shown that you would be inclined to
# do so when the bill is to protect homosexuals from the same discrimination.

I still can't parse that sentence.  I would fight such a misogynist
antidiscrimination law, and with much of the vigor that I am putting
into this -- because these sort of laws show the essentially fascist
nature of modern liberalism so well -- the contempt for individual
rights.

# This is what I have come to expect of you from reading what you write. I
# have to ask myself, is my perception wrong? Because if it's not, there
# would seem to be something else besides your opposition to anti-
# discrimination law driving you, and it would be within reason to wonder
# if you hadn't just concocted the opposition to anti-discrimination law
# position to allow you to escape the charge of bigotry.

Sorry, but my opposition to antidiscrimination laws in general has
been expressed for years on USENET.  That opposition is typical of
libertarians in the U.S.

# Now, I'm inclined to believe that you're not really a bigot, though you
# sometimes seem like one -- I'm more inclined to use a less emotionally
# charged word like `prejudiced' instead, and that's just my intuition.
# 
# But I still wonder why it is that you got so much more worked up about
# AB101 than you did about the *much* more revolutionary Americans With
# Disabilities Act.

I was quite worked up about it, and wrote my Congresscritter about it.
Perhaps its because there isn't a loud minority on USENET screeching
about how its equivalent to death camps to not pass it.

# |# I oppose ALL expansions of governmental power that tell consenting
# |# adults what they can do in private.  You are full of excuses for
# |# THIS type of expansion of governmental power, but not others.
# 
# In all the text I just deleted, nowhere did I advocate expansion of
# governmental power to tell consenting adults what they cannot do in
# private, and I challenge you to produce where I have advocated such in
# a case where the activity proscribed of said consenting adults would
# not adversely affect an innocent party in any way.

You support a law that forces one person to consent to an action that
another wants.  You seek to force consent from employers and landlords.
Put it another way: a landlord is a consenting adult, all by himself.
Your liberal/fascist policies seek to abolish that consent.

# Further, there *are* expansions of government power I am in favor of,
# that fall outside that set.
# 
# Finally, I dare say I expect I could fabricate a hypothetical situation
# wherein an adult could consent to do something in private with another
# consenting adult and you would jump through flaming rhetorical hoops to
# explain that the activity should be punished by the government.

Such as?

# You have distorted the truth -- which is to say I am calling you a liar.

I'm so distraught about this. :-)  After the sort of foul garbage that
spews out of homosexuals on USENET, this is hardly an insult.

# What I have called for is a *restoration* of the rights of all people
# to equal opportunities to housing and employment, and I say that `all
# people' includes homosexuals.

Does it include people that like the wear swastika armbands?  What about
people that like to use words like "faggot" and "kike"?  Do you believe
that it should be illegal to discriminate against racists in employment
and housing?

# I can respect your arguments that there exists no right to equal
# opportunity in housing and employment, because it denies the providers
# of these things the freedom to discriminate on the basis of their
# irrational fears, but I reject the notion that equal opportunity in

Irrational by your definition.  But you have a monopoly on truth,
don't you?

# housing and employment means government control over the personal
# business of consenting adults in private which does not adversely and
# directly affect innocent parties.

More excuses for fascism.  You just can't bear to have the government
leave people alone.

# One wonders why you have resorted to meeting my charge of homophobia,
# which I make based on what you have actually written, by making a
# spurious reference and following with a mocking but groundless retort
# designed to give it the same weight as mine by sounding similar.

Sarcasm.  It's the best solution to people who support fascism.

# |# Fascism could explain that.
# 
# Indeed. (You can do better than that, can't you Clayton?)
# 
# What I can't understand is why you don't just admit your homophobia. It's
# not like you'll lose all your friends (or your job) if you do. Maybe, you
# have, and I just missed it.
# 
# James Woodyatt  Space Systems/Loral   Palo Alto, CA   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com

1. Homophobia has lost all meaning, just like the use of "fascist"
by liberals to describe every non-Communist idea almost caused that
word to lose its meaning.  I am described as a homophobe for saying
that the government shouldn't be interfering in private adult
concerns.

2. This may surprise you, but I am considered a flaming liberal in
some circles.  I have an acquaintance who will never use the word
"homosexual."  It's always, "faggot."  Why?  He was molested as a
child by Scoutmaster.  He has never quite overcome it, and works in
a low paying blue collar job.  He might qualify as a homophobe.
If you asked if homosexuals should be all locked up, he would 
doubtless say yes.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace
of God." -- Thomas Jefferson