From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:51:49 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 6168@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Is the right to not be fired from your job *solely* because you are gay
>>a "special right"?
>
>I don't think "right" applies in this context: Working for a particular 
>person/company is a privilage, not a right. I don't, for example, 
>think I have a "right" not to be fired solely for having green eyes.

Affirmative action laws were created because people running businesses
were discriminating for such reasons.  The determination, I think, Is
that it is a priveledge to run a business, not to have a job.  So, if
you run a business you have to hire ANY QUALIFIED person.  Eye color
has no bearing on qualification, nor does skin color, religious choices
or sexual orientation.

From a purely business standpoint.  What difference does it make if you
don't like an employee/customer as long as they get the job done!!!
>
>>Is the right to not be evicted from your apartment *solely* because you
>>are gay a "special right"?
>
>Again, I think the only real "right" involved is on the other side: A
>person has a right to use his personal property however he wants. That
>includes the right to rent, or not to rent, an apartment to whoever
>he wants.

I think that if it is a situation where a person wants to SHARE an
appartment, then the person living there has the right to decide
whom to live with.  However, if the appartment is run as a business,
they shouldn't care who lives there as long as they pay rent on time
and don't ruin the appartment.  Having green eyes doesn't destroy
carpeting.  However, There is the right for a business to refuse
service to anyone!

>>Is a legally recognized marriage a "special right"?
>
>A legally recognized marriage is a privilage offered by the government.
>No one has a right to it. (If the state were to simply step out of the
>matter, and leave marriages to the church and the individuals involved,
>this wouldn't violate anyone's rights.)
>
>The issues you raise (marriage, employment and housing) aren't
>what I'd call rights, but as far as support for Amendment 2 goes
>that's just a question of semantics. There isn't much public 
>opposition to laws assuring these privilages.

Government gives tax incentives to married couples.  I think the question
here is that if people of the same sex are allowed to get married, then
they can capitalize on these incentives.  Also, many insurance policies
held by employeers give benefits to a spouse not a "good friend."

Plus, it seems that the entire basis of the whole ammendment 2 issue
is based upon religious beliefs.  Since we, in this country, are
supposed to have a separation of church and state, religious beliefs
aren't supposed to influence government to the extent that they might
affect another citizens beliefs.

I guess there are exceptions to this--some people's religions encourage
polygomy, sacrifice, etc...

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general