From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:43:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.222040.3421@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>[alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton crossposts deleted]
>
>Brian Douglass (briand@anasazi.com) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec31.043531.4304@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
> Lafornara) writes:
>: >In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.ne
>c.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>: >>In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.c
>om (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>: >>>
>: >>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
>: >>>statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
>: >>>but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
>: >>>marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
>: >>
>: >>So, will I get special rights if I am a meat eater?
>: >
>: >     Let's look at it from a different angle:  Should it be illegal
>: >for people to eat vegetables, simply because you are a meat eater?
>: >Should employers be able to fire vegetarians for not eating meat?
>: >Should school children be taught that vegetarians are abnormal?
>:
>: And must we have a law to prevent each and every one of these incidents of
>: descrimination?  As I pointed out before, Smokers have been fired for
>: smoking on their own time, at home, in their car, etc.  If employers can
>: get away with that (some have, some haven't), can Hormel firing vegetarians
>: be far behind?
>
>As you also pointed out, anti-discrimination suits have been filed.  Some of 
>the smokers won their suits and others are pending (your statments not mine).
>So, by your own admission, employers are not "get[ting] away with that."

Ah, so what laws were these suits filed under?  Federal, State?  I don't know.\
I do believe Colorado had to enact legislation to reverse the ability of 
employers to do this.

So will be the next law that has to be made to protect someone from the
newest discrimination?  Drug testing?  HIV testing?  Is not there a general
solution?

>: I repeat, can't we just have one law that forbids discriminating against
>: anything other than appropriate job qualifications?  I mean some companies
>: still get away with forbidding employees to have mustaches!  Do we also
>: need a law to stop that?  Where oh where does it end?
>
>Go for it.  Write it up.  Submit a petition on this these boards.  Get people 
>to email their acceptance (or snail mail if signatures are required).

I'm no lawyer.  But we seem to have plenty of people here that belong to
one activist group or another.  I woul ask them (Thom F Turner maybe) 

	1) Is discrimination for grounds other than job qualifications not
already prohibited by the new Civil Rights Act?
	2) If not, could someone come up with appropriately worded
legislation that prohibited discrimination regardless of form or
distinction of the injured party?

>-- 
>Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
>The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
>Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata