From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:06:03 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec10.144800.354@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.165429.8610@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec9.101506.346@hsh.com> , paul@hsh.com writes:
>>>Aaaah, but it's the everexpanding definition of 'discrimination' that is at
>>>the heart of the debate.  I would not want to be, for example, a landlord in
>>>many large cities, where _every_ tenant I turned down could easily find some
>>>reason (codified in law, no less) to sue me because I practiced some heinous
>>>sin of discrimination like 'lookism' ("The defendant _obviously_ turned my
>>>client away because he is metabolically challenged...") 
>> 
>> This is a hollow fear.  It has no basis in fact.  People can only claim
>> illegal discrimination, and discrimination can only be illegal when there
>> are laws on the books prohibiting it.  A claim of something as absurd as
>> "lookism" would probably be laughed out of court... =after= you got stuck
>> with the defendent's costs.
>
>How is is a "hollow fear"?  It HAS a basis in fact; in several (California)
>cities, there ARE such laws on the books; and at least at few people HAVE
>been prosecuted.  Not much of the looniness filters out to the East Coast
>media, but I do seem to recall a few convictions.  You're right on one point:
>the law may be laughable -- but the costs of defense are _not_. 
>
>> You can turn down anybody you want to, if you can show a reason, and you
>> apply that reasoning without regard to protected minority status (race,
>> religion, gender, etc.).  And it is encumbent on the plaintiff to prove that
>> you have done otherwise.
>
>Gee, that's nice.  And again, it's a Pyrrhic victory along the lines of "the 
>operation was a success, but the patient died."  Think about this:  would a 
>typical middle-class Joe Landlord continue to risk such suits?  Or would it 
>be safer to succumb?  
>
>>>There was an actual case (in California, I believe) where a woman refused to
>>>rent her apartment to an unmarried couple because it went against her
>>>religious beliefs.  They sued (what else?)  how would you rule in this
>>>case?
>> 
>> That would depend on just what law, if any, the landlord broke when she
>> denied the couple.  I don't believe there is any law which specifically
>> prohibits discrimination based on marital or cohabitational status.  Don't
>> ask for a ruling without providing adequate information.
>
>Too bad that you hadn't read about it.  I wish I had saved the clipping.  But 
>I am certain that California law (and that of other states) prohibits 
>discrimination based on "race, creed, religion, gender, MARITAL STATUS,..." 
>and about six other bases.  C'mon, you California readers -- can you bear 
>this out?

Not only marital status, but sexual preference as well.  We, here in the 
liberal enclave of Tucson, AZ, have a board funded by the city which responds 
to ALL cases of discrimination.  Their billboard specifically mentions 
SEXUAL PREFERENCE.  I guess that means that teachers who have a sexual 
preference for children must be hired by our school district, or else we 
will be forced to pay defense costs in the discrimination suit.

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh