From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:29:42 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12296@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <95784@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>In article <12214@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>>In article <95610@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>>>What if a cabal of heterosexist pigs controls the major companies
>>>>including the banks, which might be used to obtain small business loans)
>>>>in a small town. The town is small enough for everyone to know something
>>>>about everyone else's sexual orientations. The big cheeses decide to
>>>>prohibit hiring gays, or giving them loans, for that matter.

>>>Yes, but does this happen?

>>It's amazing how someone like you who argues so passionately about
>>legal IDEALS, suddenly turns to pragmatism when it is to your benefit.

>So you are admitting that your example is nonsense.  Thank you.

Nothing of the sort...you're welcome.

If we both observed that the murder rate had gone flat out to 0 over
the next few years, would we be justified in removing all laws which
punish murder?

The point is not how probable, but whether it is possible.

Laws are meant to protect as few as one person from the coercive
actions of others. 

>>>And why don't the homosexuals in town do what most racial minorities
>>>have always done when confronted with these problems: stand together? 
>>>In the Asian community, the tradition of the rotating credit association
>>>played a major role in capitalizing small businesses.

>>Well, exactly that IS happening nowadays. There are homosexual business
>>cooperatives in Boston today, at least.

>So you shouldn't need an antidiscrimination law to solve the 
>hypothetical problem you describe.

If there were no state-instituted punishment for murder, but the populace
saw the necessity of arming themselves and seeking revenge through
vigilanteism, would we say "we don't need laws against murder?"

>>>>It would be nice to have a government which would stand up for individual
>>>>rights over group rights for a change.

>>>What about my individual right to decide who to rent to?

>>Wasn't it you who said, "If you want personal freedom, you've got to
>>permit the freedoms of others" ?

>I'm willing.  You want freedom to engage in sex that I find 
>unpleasant.  Fine.  No objection from me.  Grant me the same
>freedom to express my disapproval by not associating with you.

Why can't you just SAY it, instead of insisting on space between us?

Why is not freedom of speech good enough? You yourself said it was
the SEX which was unpleasant. Does that imply that the mere employment
of someone who engages in sexual acts on his own time, in the privacy
of his home, which is away from work, is somehow unpleasant to you?

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with you! How then can it unpleasant?

The only situations in which you have solid ground to stand on are
those which involve actual conduct at work. You are perfectly able
to control the conduct of your employees, and specify which activities
are prohibited by penalty of disassociation, firing. To say freedom
of association extends to activities which are not done in your
presence infringes upon rights to privacy.

Fine. Don't let your gay employees behave in a certain way on company
time. But if you fire them because of actions they commit in the
privacy of their own home, expect a lawsuit.

>>>you just claimed that pedophilia (adults having sex with children)
>>>isn't child molestation.  Why make that distinction, if not to 
>>>defend pedophiles?

>>Pedophilia is NOT adults having sex with children. Pedophilia is
>>adults WANTING to have sex with children. I think that is what Jeff
>>Dauber meant by "I defend pedophiles." Allow people to have their
>>sexual orientations, just don't support expressions of these actions,
>>like child molestation, which have harmful impact.

>So there's no good reason to refuse to hire a guy wearing a NAMBLA
>T-shirt at a day care center -- where he may be alone with some of
>the kids for extended periods of time.  I mean, he hasn't DONE 
>anything yet, right? :-)

In my opinion, if he informs you of his pedophilia, there is good
reason to discharge him. Children are involved. Unlike the case
of a mutually consenting adult sexual orientation. Presumably you
aren't trying to protect your other (adult) employees from
homosexuality, in the latter case.

If the gay employee makes unwelcome advances or behaves in an
innapropriate sexual manner according to company policy, then
fire that person.

If he does it at home, what's it to you?

>Please, take your argument to Gov. Weld.  Let him hear it.  I
>think a lot of Gov. Weld (surprise, surprise).  I'm sure that you
>will cause him to rethink his position.

Well, I was proud to vote for him. He's a man of principle. I'm
sure he would agree that Massachusetts' gay rights law was never
meant to apply to pedophilia.

And if such a lawsuit ever made it to court, I'm sure it would
be thrown out.

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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=