From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:56:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Sep12.105039.7439@resonex.com>, by michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan):
> In article <12272@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>>Don't get me wrong, I am a liberal who believes that Affirmative
>>Action had its place.  It was an attempt to right some wrongs.
>>Unfortunately, it has been carried too far.

> There is a *large* difference between anti-discrimination laws and
> affirmative action programs.  I've yet to hear anyone ask for an
> affirmative action program for gays and lesbians.  All we are asking
> for are laws to protect us from getting fired just because somebody
> doesn't like the fact that we're gay.

But that is putting requirements on an employer to keep that gay
person hired.  This would just result in more legal wrangling
should that gay person be forced to leave the company.  If there
is a real demand for such assurances, it can be put into the
employment contract, and then that person can sue if they are
fired for that reason.  This way it is mutually consentual.
Besides, would you want to work for a company that fired people
because they were gay?  I wouldn't.  Let people ruin their own
businesses if they really want to; don't force government to do
it for them.

> The idea that anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation
> are somehow "special rights" is a smoke screen created by Religious
> Fundamentalists and others who wish to prey on the fears of the
> the average citizen.

Wow, I've been likened to either a Fundamentalist or an average
citizen!  I love it!  Any law that requires discrimination is
giving one group of people power over another.  Saying that this
is a smoke screen does not make it so.  Can someone elaborate?

>>I implore you to resist legislation granting special
>>governmental priviledges to gays.

Actually, instead of "gays," I should have said "any sexual
preference."  Anyway...

> I agree whole-heartedly!  I would *also* implore you to resist
> legislation granting special governmental privileges to the 
> heterosexual population, and where such laws exist, work to have
> them overturned.  Laws which allow marriages between straight
> people, but not gay people.  Laws which prohibit sex between
> two people of the same gender.  Impending legislation which
> would make it illegal for public property being used by gay
> organizations.  On and on the list goes of laws to grant
> privileges to the heterosexual populace, but yet people scream
> bloody murder at an attempt by gays and lesbians to restore
> equality to the system.

You have listed a number of ways in which the government wrongly
discriminates against its own gay citizens.  One biggy that you
forgot is that gays are banned from the military.  The solution
is not to impose equal and opposite discrimination, but rather
to eliminate those laws which require or sponsor discrimination
in the first place.  (Now Governor) Clinton is in favor of doing
away with the military ban, so maybe there is just a speck of
light at the end of the tunnel.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc