From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:10:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(phil)
/Wow! Shudder! Gasp! What, you mean that maybe Clayton is calling for
/freedom SO strong that people might ACTUALLY allowed to do something that
/YOU consider STUPID!?

Not stupid; illegal.  And a violation of civil liberties.

But since you spoke up, I put the same question to you, Phil:

   IF: you believe that it is perfectly legal to discriminate
   according to your heart's content in a private situation,
    
   AND IF: You are calling non-religious employment & for-profit
   rentals a private situation,
    
   THEN: You must also support an employer who refuses to hire
   blacks or Jews.
  
   AND: You must also support the right of a landowner not to
   rent to blacks or Jews.
   
    
    Checkmate.

SO:
Do you or do you not support the right of a landowner / employer
to discriminate?

==================================

/(phil)
/Next thing you know, people might want to do other stupid things, like
/climbing mountains with safety equipment 

I assume you meant "without".  What people do to themselves (even stupid
things) is their own business.  What they do that affects other people
is another matter.



/(phil)
/or riding motocycles without helmuts 

It's spelled "motorcycle" and "helmet".  And the answer is the same as 
mountain-climbing.


(phil)
/or eating red meat 

Whatever floats your boat.  As long as it's not the red meat of some
human you killed against his/her will.


(phil)
/or having homosexual sex with 20 strangers in
/one night ...

That's not stupid, Phil; you're just bragging, that's all . . .




(phil)
/It would be funny if it wasn't so sick & frustrating -- all the little closet
/fascists that just CAN'T see why people should have the freedom to do
/things that they don't approve of. 

1.  Because the legal right to discriminate does not exist

2.  Because the govt has always, ever since the beginning of this country,
    reserved to itself the right to regulate trade and commerce and to
    place restrictions on both for the preservation of the general welfare

3.  The philosophical basis for your argument is a libertarian belief which
    has no legal foundation in this country; i.e., the existence of a right 
    of association




(phil)
/When you look at it, there is no
/difference between this post and the ramblings of some ultra fundie or
/ayatollah ...


Hmmm. . . So far you have called me an ayatollah, and a fascist (in
another post)

    >> Oh yes. The little fascist. 

and a couple of other things, also, too juvenile and insignificant to 
mention here.

But you know, the principle I advocate (nondiscrimination) would
not have been at all welcome in Nazi Germany; it would have forced
them to treat Jews, gypsies, and gays equally.  Your attitude would
have been very welcome, though.  Encouraged, even; as a way to
deal with "undesireables".

And in Iran where they discriminate against Jews and Christians,
my principle of nondiscrimination would also be rejected; anyone
who voiced such a view might even be killed.  Your attitude, however, 
would be very popular.

Hmm. . . let's see . . .

Obviously, fascism and unthinking fanaticism ("ayatollah") apply to 
*you* more than to me, Phil.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48441 alt.rush-limbaugh:6124 alt.politics.bush:7070 alt.politics.elections:14563 talk.abortion:39147 alt.politics.clinton:7671 talk.religion.misc:17356