HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.163459.15249@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> lspangle@nyx.cs.du.edu (L. A. Spangler) writes:
>
>>urban@cs.colostate.edu writes:
>    
>	...in the continuing debate over Amendment 2...
>
>>The major problem I see is if your boss doesn't like you. He could claim
>>you displayed homosexual tendencies and fire you for being gay whether you
>>are or not. Now due to the amendment you have no legal recourse such as 
>>claiming discrimination in courts to get your job back.
>
>I don't claim to be a lawyer, but do have some experience in the area of 
>libel and slander law.  It would seem an individual who was fired, based 
>solely on allegations he or she were gay would have recourse in civil court 
>if: 
>	1)  The allegation were "published" in that individuals 
>	    personnel records, or better yet, a company memo to 
>	    the personnel department (libel), ,  
>        2)  or the individual were slandered in a conversation by 
> 	    a superior who mentioned to another person the termination 
>            was because of sexual preference (slander).  .  

I'm not enough of a lawyer to know whether this would work or
not either, but it sounds to me that it could be effective.  

I would find it galling to hear that someone did this, because
"slander" or "libel" implies defaming someone, and I refuse to
believe that calling someone gay or lesbian is a defamation.
(no smileys -- not many of those since A2 passed and burst my
bubble that the REAL fundamentalists weren't powerful enough
in Colorado to do such a monstrous thing)

I remember when my sister came home with the slang word "gay,"
which she used to mean "disgusting and bad" or sometimes just
"bad."  She would hear about something she didn't like and
exclaim "That's GAY!"  Every time, I told her I didn't want 
to hear her use that word as an insult; eventually she started
saying things like "Oh, but I can't say that because JILL's
around."  (oh, what a devil I am)  I would think of that 
if I heard someone saying (with however much need) that
being called "lesbian" or "gay" was being slandered.

Well, enough of my stories; thanks for an interesting idea.

-- 
Jill Lundquist		jill@cs.colorado.edu		DoD #882

When hell freezes over, grab the ice skates.
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:57:43 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov8.235605.7626@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.221811.27141@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> johnsonr@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Richard Johnson) writes:
>>...the law rightly
>>prevents me from firing someone because their skin is black or brown.
>>The law should also prevent me from firing someone because they are a
>>gay or lesbian.
>
>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that such descrimination is a 
>terrible thing, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>the role of law and government? Certainly there are other ways to
>prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the 
>practice 

Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that armed robbery is a
terrible thins, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
the role of law and government? Certainly there are other ways to
prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the practice.

Well, Frank, the Declaration of Independence states that the sole, legitimate
purpose of government is to "secure [the] rights]" of the governed. 
The Preamble of the Constitution states that the purposes of the document
are (among other things) to "establish Justice,...,promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...". How's that for a reason?

Certainly, it's possible to adopt other models: the anarchist model of
"voluntary associations" has certain attractions, but I suspect that
it degenerates into feudalism  in no time flat. 

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:17:40 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson) writes:
> ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu (HENDRICKER ALAN DAVID ) writes:
> > This scenario occurred in New York.  Two females who were renting a room
> > and looking for a roommate turned down a woman, simply because she was
> > homosexual and they would not feel comfortable around her.  Well, after
> > some lawsuits, the roommates ended up paying something like 3k in fines and
> > months of sensitivity classes etc.  
> > 
> > 
> >  
> No, they did not. They were ordered to do so, but a court of appeals 
> determined that the anti-discrimination ordinance was not intended to
> apply to roommates. 
> 
> 
> 
Jeff) Hull asks for my source. Mail to you bounced, Jeff), so I'll post:

I knew someone would ask, and I don't have them. However, someone else
on this group posted the same thing as I did, and said I believe that
he's in the town where it happened (not actually New York, but Madison)
and he might have specific information. As so often happens, I read it
and didn't keep it because I didn't have plans to use it...sorry.

-Laura.

Also, thanks to all who posted parts of the amendment itself relating to
legalizing discrimination. It looks to me as if the ballot summary was an
adequate paraphrasing of the amendment.

-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Boycott
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:53:30 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver

I'm selling Boycott Colorado t-shirts. They're not fancy, just 
simple minded and (probably not very) effective. The cost per 
shirt depends on how much you don't spend in 1993 on products 
from Colorado, as a result of amendment 2 passing. All proceeds
will be donated to the people that lose their jobs as a result of
absurd attacks on Colorado's economy, which is based on a whole hell
of a lot more than meat, beer and skiing.

Your conscience will thank you.

Tim
(faking a laugh)
Newsgroups: co.general
From: devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:33:40 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov9.011507.13739@colorado.edu> devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski) writes:
: >: Amendment two in short was about whether or not homosexuals should be given
: >: minority status, and the "benefits" that go along with such.
: 
: >*laughs*
: >Not to sound judgemental, but have you read the amendment?  CAN you read?
: 
: Actually, have _you_ read the amendment? Or just the summary on the
: ballot?

I'm not sure I even know what the ballot summary says.  I've only really read
the amendment itself.

			-D

--
Devin Hooker (RP90)  (SotM 7/91)  DoD #0034  devin@boulder.colorado.edu  ------
"It's being both that's a bitch."                                      --\--- /
"I wanted to take my brain to hell and back and see what I had left."  \  \ //
"This howling in the distance, it's a captivating sound.                \  \/
        Can't tell if it's ecstasy or pain..."  -DW                      \/
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
Subject: Re: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Date: 12 Nov 92 06:12:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov11.191150.16054@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.155149.14744@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>
>>I agree totally with you, where you say, that the content is what
>>matters. And that is where I end agreeing with you. If you read
>>the amendment, you'd see that it has precious little to do with not giving
>>gays protected status as a minority. All it does is take away the civil
>>rights of a certain population group. Nothing more.
>
>I could be wrong, but Jan, wearn't you the one saying that without
>this bill heterosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals would have been
>protected from discrimination as well? At least that is the big story
>I've been hearing on the net! So everyone lost their rights...we voted
>to loose our rights. But what we are really saying is that sexual
>orientation of any kind is not a basis for special protection. But the
>gay rights groups are labeling this as a hate bill (propaganda), yet
>get on CFV's case for promoting the bill as stripping gays 'special'
>rights. Same tactics on both sides by people who believe extremes. Have
>politics ever been different?
>
No. _We_ didn't vote to loose _our_ rights. _We_ voted to loose the rights
of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.
Quite a difference. We already had rights (along with gays..). This
existing laws have now sort of been abridged to exclude those
of a homosexual or bisexual orientation. This bill is explicitely against
homosexual, lesbians and bisexuals.

Or did I misunderstand your article above?

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general
From: sailors@CS.ColoState.EDU (robert sailors)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 14:45:58 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <Nov06.060107.50183@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> valeria@lamar.ColoState.EDU () writes:
>To those that are moaning and complaing about how Amendment #2 is going to 
>
>bring the end of the world to the gay community, let us examine the  
>
>Amendment as it was written on the ballot. 
>
>	Shall there be an Amendment to Article II of the Colorado Constitution
>	to prohibit the state of Colorado and any of its political subdivisions
>	from adopting or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
>	homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships
>	constitutes or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected
>	status,quota preferences, or discrimination.
>

You are right, I think, when you say that there are a lot of folks that will
condem you actions out of hand.  This is unfortunate.  We are all in the
position of defending our own moralities, lifestyles, etc against people who
are so emotionally involved in the subject (pro or con), that we can't have
rational discussions.

I voted against the amendment, because it is restrictive.  If no laws are
allowed to entitle persons to redress for injustices that have occured over
generations, how are we to help them?  Gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, elder
citizens, unborn children, Hare Krishna, ..., can no longer look to the
legislature for redress.
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:00:20 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:

>I guess this also means that I can be fired because I drink Coke
>instead of Pepsi, read the Post instead of the News, like FOX better
>than ABC, ride public transportation instead of owning a car, have
>brown hair instead of blonde, have a phone number with an 871 prefix,
>like IBM's better than Mac's, have more than 5 video tapes, have a
>2400 baud modem instead of a 9600, live in Denver and not
>Littleton....how many more reasons do I have to give?

As I understand it, you can be fired.  Period.  It would be stupid for an
employer to add "...because you're gay."  when a simple "clean out your
desk!" would do.
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:27:12 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In a similar vein, Prime Time Live last night ran a story on "Food Lion"
grocery stores, and how they consistently were selling expired food, even 
repackaging it with new dates multiple times...  The primary offenders
were the Deli and Meat departments.

I know I've seen some pretty suspect items at Kings.  I suspect it is
common in all food stores.  My belief is that this is merely the result
of capitalism...  I.e., that stores need to purchase more than they can sell
in order to not run out, but then refuse to take a loss on the excess.

Watch what y'all eat...
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Newsgroups: co.general
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of Amendment 2
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:52:13 GMT


I do not personally believe that Amd. 2 can rationally be found to be
unconstitional. Obviously, an Amemdment to the Colo. constitution cannot
be found to violate the Colo. consistution. That leaves the U.S.
Constitution. The only portions that I can see having any relevance
are the due process and equal protection provisions in the 14th amdt.
Equal protection is usually considered to be stronger. Equal protection
has three levels of scrutiny: strict for race, religion, national origin;
intermediate for sex and alienage; and rational relationship for all others.
Sexual preference would obviously fall into the rational relationship catagory.
The current (US) Supreme Court cannot be expected to extend one of the 
higher levels of scrutiny to sexual preference until it can be established
conclusively (and society accepts) that sexual preference is not
a lifestyle choice but is biological. Rational relationship requires 
that essentially some governmental reason be found, however minor, for
the law or amendment. For this reason, laws are almost never struck
down under a rational relationship test. This is especially true with
the Reinquest court, which defers to the government(s), presuming such.

Newsgroups: co.general
From: tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:46:30 GMT

In article <Nov06.060107.50183@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> valeria@lamar.ColoState.EDU () writes:
>To those that are moaning and complaing about how Amendment #2 is going to 
>
>bring the end of the world to the gay community, let us examine the  
>
>Amendment as it was written on the ballot. 
>
>	Shall there be an Amendment to Article II of the Colorado Constitution
>	to prohibit the state of Colorado and any of its political subdivisions
>	from adopting or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
>	homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships
>	constitutes or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected
>	status,quota preferences, or discrimination.
>
>My question to the fools and idiots is: Where in the law does it say that
>
>discrimation is lawful. Once again the press, the gay rights groups and the
>
>poltical groups are misleading the people of Colorado.l voted for #2 and still
>
>have no problems sleeping.
>
>I know that I will be called all types of names and will be flamed for these
>
>comments but who cares about narrow minded bigots.
>
>It was a good day when #2 passed.
>
>
>
>

	To valeria@lanar......


	Before you starting calling people fools and idiots perhaps you
	should read the amendment again.  As it says above, it is illegal
	to adopt or enforce any law which provides that gay orientation
	or conduct entitles a person to claim discrimination.   I am
	surprised that they allow people to graduate from high school with
	such limited powers of reading comprehension.

	One final point on how deceptive the framers of this ballot question
	have been.  In all of their promotional literature they talked
	about sexual "preference", but on the ballot question we find 
	the term sexual "orientation" used.  There is a big difference.
	Maybe the proponents of this initiative don't believe their own
	propaganda that being gay or lesbian is simply an individual
	"preference".



				Tom Mayer
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:34:05 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <1992Nov8.174143.740@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>
>But it is already legal to deny people housing based on lifestyle choices--
>just look at any condo or apartment complex that bars children.  If the
>"breeder" lifestyle is not protected, I see no reason why other lifestyles
>should be any more priviledged.

Coupla points: homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" is becoming hard to 
support, except by die-hard anti-gay folks.  (Note that even while CFV's
literature said it was not an "orientation", their ballot wording called
it one!).  Secondly, if you feel that housing discrimination on the basis
of having children is/is not a legitimate grounds, please work towards
dealing with that issue directly.  Neither supporting nor opposing equal
rights regarding sexual orientation is going to improve or worsen the
fairness of apartment leases regarding children.  Linking unrelated issues
will just confuse them.
   ~z~
Newsgroups: co.general
From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:22:41 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
> Pre-Election polls showed Amendment 2 clearly failing and
> yet it passed by a comfortable margin.  This suggests to me that
> people knew that this amendment was bigoted.

How on earth do you derive a conclusion of bigotry from an incorrect
pre-election poll?  I am questioning only the logic, how can one
possibly follow from the other?  (I already know how people derive
bigotry from the actual result, you needn't repeat those arguments.)

Pre-election polls also suggested that Amendment 1 would fail, but it
passed.  Was this result also caused by bigotry?

> I know how the 
> white supremecists, skinheads, and "Archie Bunker"-types voted on
> this issue.

Are you saying the pollsters excluded these groups and therefore the
result was different from the poll?

> Bigotry = Hate.
> 
> Rick Schoenhals

Apparently "dissapointment over an election result" =
"inability to think coherently"

Dan Kary

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:16:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.195835.8649@colorado.edu> fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden) writes:
>I have an additional question. Do they have to prove you're homosexual?
>Or could they just claim you are and fire you? i.e. you're an assertive,
>non-submissive female, so therefore you must be lesiban and we don't want
>any of them working here" This is only a question and theoretical situation.

It really doesn't matter: The employer doesn't even have to mention
homosexuality in this case. Anyone can be fired for being "too 
assertive" or "causing personality conflicts with other employees" or
similar. The effect of Amendment 2, in this case, is that anyone so
fired could not sue, claiming the real reason was prejudice about
homosexuality.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:23:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.031116.20971@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:
>Did anybody notice the blurb on CNN today about the homosexual Navy officer
>who is suing the Navy over being discharged?
>He is suing on the basis that the military prohibition of homosexuals is
>a violation of the 14th Amendment.
>A Federal court agreed with him today and ordered the Navy to reinstate him.
>Looks like good precedent for the Amendment Two case.

I don't think it is applicable: The Navy policy was directly discriminatory.
Amendment 2 simply stops _preventing_ discrimination. _Acting_ against
homosexuals is something the Court would overturn, but just deciding
to do nothing is a different matter (legally.)

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:40:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.221836.18360@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.190510.6520@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>>Sure, you could be fired because you drink pepsi, but you could also sue
>>>>your employer because the firing was based on discrimination.  Amendment 2
>>>>has revoked that right for homosexuals.
>
>>>How, exactly, could you sue? To sue someone, you must they must have
>>>either caused you real (and measurable) harm or have violated a
>>>law.
>
>>I've done some hiring and firing in my time and when I was, I had to literally
>>be instructed by the corporate lawyer on what I could and could not
>>even *ask* the potential employee. They could sue me for not being *hired*
>>if I had asked them what their *age* was! It happens! (of course, this was
>>in CA where they will sue you for looking out of the corner of your eye, but
>>hey...)
>
>California has _lots_ of anti-discrimination laws on the books, including
>(I think) a law against age-discrimination. If such a law exists,
>_anyone_ with even the smallest scrap of evidence of discrimination
>can sue. But if there isn't a law on the subject, there must be
>substantial evidence of harm. 
>
>>Imagine what they could do if I had asked them if they practiced safe sex!
>
>They couldn't sue for discrimination (probably: If California has laws
>against discrimination on the basis of sexual practices, they might
>claim the question _implied_ gathering information on and therefore
>possibly discriminating because of, sexual practices. But that's
>all dependent on the existance of a related anti-discrimination.)

Yes, with 'implications', you can sue for anything. As I'm am not a lawyer,
I cannot give expert opinion but I doubt there needs to be an explicit 
law forbidding an activity for one to be able to sue.


-- 
David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                 knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it.

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics