From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 16:20:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.200412.2452@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <C0JqwG.5Hx@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:
>>Umm, I explained I would support CO2 precisely because I think it does
>>not advocate granting special privileges to heterosexuals. Perhaps
>>you could explain how it in fact does grant heterosexuals such privileges?
>>Again, I'm quite willing to change my mind about this. But, as
>>far as I can see, the only thing CO2 does is says that a homosexual
>>cannot have access to special privileges *by virtue of being
>>homosexual*. It doesn't say that he can't have access to special
>>privileges by reason of any other respect of his person. Nor does it
>>say that heterosexuals can have access to special privileges because
>>they are heterosexual.
>
>AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
>
>Tell me, Morris, do you think blacks have "special privileges" because they
>are black?  I wanna hear you say it.  It'll be really, really satisfying
>to hear you say that.  John Stuart Mill, indeed!  It is to gasp with
>astonishment.
>
I believe you all are misunderstanding him.  He seems to me to be saying 
that he disapproves of a law which says
one can sue on the grounds that one shouldn't be fired if one is black, but
one _cannot_ sue for being fired because one is white.  This isn't so, but
it seems to me that that is what he believes the law says... and I haven't
yet heard anyone cite anything which disproves this.

I can actually cite two cases where the majority sued the minority for
discrimination, but I can't (at the moment) give the appropriate case numbers
etc.  I'll email my brother the lawyer (hee hee - it's still funny that _my_
brother is a lawyer.  My whole family is a bunch of _flaming_ liberals) and
ask him to provide documentation for me so I can post it.  Anyway, one
case involved a "hearing" person who held a high level position in a 
non-profit hearing impaired group.  The group wished to have only hearing-
impaired people in key positions and "let go" the hearing person, despite
his job performance.  He sued for unlawful termination (and won, I believe,
although it's irrelevant.  The point is that he could bring the suit).  The
other was a similar non-profit minority services group, who wouldn't consider
an application from a white male.  He sued for discrimination and won.
I should mention that these kind of laws only apply to certain employers.  By
law, an employer has to employ a certain number of people, or be government
or non-profit or other regulated groups, before the laws count.  I worked for
a very small company for a time that openly refused to hire black people.  
There was nothing anyone could due about it as they were a completely private,
privately financed company, which only employed six people, and didn't meet
the requirements.

>Anyone who thinks that white heterosexual non-dead males don't enjoy
>special privilege precisely because of their WHN-DM status is undoubtedly
>a WHN-DM.  Some WHM-DM's manage to see beyond their blinders; others die
>with their vision circumscribed, serene to the end in their assumptions.
>
But you're not addressing his question.  Do white heterosexual non-dead males
have the same right to sue for discrimination or unlawful termination as
non-white, non-heterosexual, non-males (I left out the unliving, ok? :)?
How many cases can you think of where a white male has sued for such a 
thing?  Are we protecting the rights of the minority _over_ the rights of
the majority?  Actually, no, but it doesn't come up very often, so it's
hard to prove.

I actually agree with Mike on some points (and I'm a flaming liberal with
a "socialist" agenda <grin>).  I dislike too much government interference in
the private sector.  I think the government is running way out of line in
the name of protecting the most innocent of our society - our children...to
the point where I sometimes wonder if I'm going to be allowed to raise my
children within my own beliefs.  Protecting children is a very
emotion-charged issue, but I worry that allowing the government to interfere
(even in cases where it is necessary) leads some to believe that the 
government has the _right_ to tell parents what to teach their children, what
to believe, etc.  It could easily get out of hand (imo). 

>-- 
>Steve Dyer
			Laura Mollett