From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Boycott Colorado (was Re: Membership Renewal ??)
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:01:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1993Jan24.160128.7400
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan24.020732.19234@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>In article 23762@ryn.mro4.dec.com, shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>>
>>The vote was a vote by the PEOPLE, not by legislators. Under our DEMOCRATIC
>>process in this country, and exemplified by the citizens of Colorado, the
>>democratic method as determined that the people of Colorado, by a majority
>>vote, do not want homosexuals to be considered a protected class and subject to
>>special privileges which are not available to non-homosexuals. 
>
>I don't believe that the amendment as passed had the effect of making 
>homosexuals not be a protected class.  (I also dispute whether homosexuals 
>are in any respect a special class or that they have any special priveleges.)
>It had the effect of negating all of the equal protection statues currently on 
>the books.
>
>Under both state and federal law, it is illegal to discriminate based on sex,
>race, or religion.  Many states have extended this to include discrimination 

This is the basic problem.  Discrimination is said to be illegal, and at the
same time, Affirmative Action itself must, by its very nature, discriminate.

The idea is that affected classes must be compensated for their past
disadvantages.  It seems rather obvious, but it's not clear that people
that debate this kind of thing realize the dichotomy.  Their statements
of absolutism on both sides are therefore all so much crap.

The obvious decision is not to decide not to discriminate, since that,
in its absolute sense, is impossible and at best impractical.  The
obvious decision is to evaluate what constitutes practical, justifiable,
and/or humane discrimination.

If we were to say that all those that have suffered past wrongs should
be compensated, how far back should we go?  A hundred years?  A thousand?
Ten thousand?  Could we find anyone who had not?  How would we judge the
"current market value" Re: today's privileges?

If ten people were to end up on the doorstep of my business and demanded
that I hire them, and claimed to be homosexual, and I had few or no
homosexuals in my employ, how could I prove I was not in violation of
discrimination laws?  Would I need character references from each one?
Given the wide range of sexual preferences from hetero- to bi- to
homosexual, who would be eligible to benefit under the laws?  Would
we have people all over claiming to be homosexuals like all the Americans
that are 1/64th or 1/128th American Indian claiming to be Indians.
Possibly not.  It's convenient for the homophobes among us that homosexuality
carries at least a different stigma that other group do not.  But is any of
that fair?

There are those that say that an individual's value should be based
upon what they can do, and not what race or religion or sexual preference
they are.  But clearly, there are laws that claim otherwise.  And
clearly, people do in fact discriminate based upon those factors, and
clearly some of this discrimination is inhumane.  But it is not clear
that all discrimination is.  And it is definitely not clear that people
know what, exactly, they are talking about when they discuss "discrimination".

The ammendment referred to in the original post denying the right to
claim discrimination against homosexuals might be a reaction to the
difficulty I spoke of above, difficulty in determining if homosexuality
itself was the reason for the cited discrimination.  But although that
may be claimed, it is also the case in all other instances of perceived
discrimination.  There are some members of other groups that some
members of other groups may just have difficulties with due to an
entirely different matter, and then rationalize their reactions 
with the idea, "Well, THEY are always unreasonable, anyway!"

It usually comes down to perceived probability.  "Well, I know
they were all Chinese, but they were all unqualified."  Well,
were they?  Let's be frank.  In most cases, I don't know, and
you don't either.

In this case of the boycott, specifically, the statement that THE
PEOPLE were responsible for the vote, it seems as though the poster
was referring to a monolithic group of everyone, or at least the
majority, in Colorado.  And THEY should suffer.  To make the voices
heard.  And those that were not "guilty" -- well, tough shit.  After
all, they're in the minority.  And if a business goes under that had
nothing to do with the ammendment, hey, somebody's always got to 
suffer a bit to stop suffering, right?

Who has that simple, common-sense, Absolute Answer to the Boycott
issue?   

Who gets to choose who the lucky minority is this week? 

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa