From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:01:07 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1jsjqlINNjbe@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>|>A: I'd like to have sex with you.        A: I'd like to rent your room.
>|>B: No thanks, you're not what I want.    B: No thanks, you're not what I want.
>|>A: Oh well, too bad.                     A: Discrimination!!!!
    
    >Your A & B example is invalid because B on the left is an
    >individual, while B on the right is a business. Now if B on
    >the left was a prostitute, then maybe both examples would be
    >discrimination.

1. 80% of all "landlords" in California are individuals, not businesses.

2. What does being a "business" have to do with it? Does a business (a
   coporation, partnership, or a plain DBA) have any less civil rights
   that an individual? (Answer, no, of course not).


    >In California, it is against the law to deny housing based on
    >marital status. If an unmarried couple wants to rent an
    >apartment from a landlord, the landlord cannot choose to not
    >rent to them for that reason, even if the landlord feels that
    >it would be against his religion for an unmarried male and
    >female to have sex with each other.

So what? Big fucking deal. In Georgia it's illegal for two males to engage
in sodomy. In both cases, the law is IMMORAL and wrong. Just because something
is legal/illegal does not make it moral.

    >If a religious landlord finds this unacceptable, then he can
    >choose to get into another line of business.

So if two homosexuals in Georgia find the law unacceptable, they can just
change their sexual preferences.

My, you are might generous with feelings and beliefs, as long as they aren't
yours.

    >|> |>Remember, if (for example) YOU want to fuck whatever,
    >then HE gets to rent to |>whatever.
    >
    >Again, in this example, "YOU" are an individual, while "HE"
    >is a business.

Not that it makes any difference, but, you are wrong. Most of the time it is
an individual.

    >
    >|> |>Every single thinsg that the Colorado law struck against
    >("to have or claim |>any minority status, quota preferences,
    >protected status or claim of |>discrimination.") are names
    >for special, coercive treatements -- things |>that require
    >under coercive threat of law poepl to do things (hire, rent,
    >|>treat) they otherwise wouldn't.
    >
    >The same things that were used in the 60s and 70s to begin to
    >correct discrimination against non-whites, non-Prodestants,
    >and women.

So? It doesn't matter that the coercive and immoral laws were greatly increased
in the 1960's. That's tragic and sad, but so is a l,ot that goes on in the
world.

    >|>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll
    >rent 'em cheap ...)
    >
    >The act of renting them makes you a business. If you were to
    >rent to some, but not others, based on race, color, creed,
    >sex, marital status, or sexual orientation, that would be
    >discrimination.

Why yes, you are correct in one thing -- it WOULD be discrmination. What
being a business has to do with it is irrelevant.

A business is NOT a volitional entity -- a business is only what the people
in it make of it.

Even you admit this (by being inconsistent) -- after all, you said that a
prostitute isn't a business in the above post.

By your illogic, the various groups asking for a boycott of Colorado are,
by their own (il)logic, also discriminating on sexual orientation. As they
sit there calling for a boycott of all those "homophobes" (sexual orientation)
in Colorado -- what are they doing?

Discriminating in business on the basis of sexual orientation.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8334 ca.politics:10687