HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:24:05 GMT
Reply-To: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Organization: BNR, Inc.



|> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

|>
|>To take a case in point, according to yesterday's "60 Minutes" the
|>U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) used to
|>discriminate in hiring in of men. They now try to hire the most
|>qualified person without regard to sex. You predicted that this would
|>make them more productive, but in fact, they have become less
|>productive because the women employees are being so harassed that they
|>have trouble doing their job. Morale for all of ATF is very, very low.
|>I believe that the same thing happens at many private workplaces.
|>
|>If it wasn't the threat of outside punitive actions from (other
|>branches of) the government, ATF would probably just give up on hiring
|>women, because it doesn't seem to pay.

Your example shows the problem with Harassment, not hiring practices or 
discrimination. A few well timed firings would probably help the situation.
The big problem is you can't get rid of civil servants easily enough when
they don't do thier job.

gaj
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 12:46:13 PST

In <1993Jan11.182642.8919@midway.uchicago.edu>:

>(part of the debate about Colorado's Amendment 2 deleted)
>

>according to the amendment which you kindly provided me a copy of
>homosexual orientation cannor be used to "claim any minority status, quota
>preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination". That is what I
>call preventing homosexuals from receiving any special priveleges. If that
>makes them second class citizens then it also makes white hetro males who
>cannot claim any special priveleges second class as well.

Well, the terms "minority status," "quota preferences," and "protected
status" suggest merely what you mention--prevention of preferential treatment.
However, there's more to 2 than that, and you seem to gloss over it.

Remove the clause "or claim of discrimination" and I'd agree with you.  Until
that point, the amendment only seeks to prevent "special victim status."  But
with that one clause, the amendment says "Oh, and by the way, discrimination
against gays based on sexual orientation shall not be prohibited by Colorado."

That one clause prevents gays from undertaking *any* legal action due to
discrimination based on their sexuality.  That doesn't look like "equal
protection under the law" to me.

Wording is everything.  Those four words make the whole amendment in violation
of the Constitution.


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:6090 alt.politics.equality:15 alt.society.civil-liberty:7290 talk.politics.misc:66412 alt.politics.homosexuality:9041
From: everettm@Cayman.COM (Mark Everett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:21:38 GMT
	<1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com> <C0Jw7A.KH4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 19:45:08 GMT


Let's suppose that there are certain inalienable rights (i.e., life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness).  If a person is perfectly capable of a number of jobs available,
but no one allows that person to work because he has some minor characteristic that isn't
liked, hasn't that person been denied the right to life (i.e., he can't buy any food or
shelter) and the pursuit of happiness?

Even if a particular discrimination doesn't directly deprive someone of their rights, it
doesn't seem difficult to find indirect rights deprivation.

--
.................................................................................
Mark J. Everett	    : Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
everettm@cayman.com : Phone 617-494-1999, Fax 617-494-5167, AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:28:46 GMT

sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

[...]
>according to the amendment which you kindly provided me a copy of  
>homosexual orientation cannor be used to "claim any minority status, quota  
>preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination". That is what I  
>call preventing homosexuals from receiving any special priveleges. If that  
>makes them second class citizens then it also makes white hetro males who  
>cannot claim any special priveleges second class as well.
[...]

The law allows straights to be protected from public and
private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The law forbids gays from being protected from public or private
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The law, thus, makes gays second-class citizens.

- Carl


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:10:24 GMT

In article <C0oIMA.BJM@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Would you then also support an Amendment that said Jews and Anglicans
>may not be covered in laws against government and private
>discrimination on the basis of religion?

Exactly.  Imagine the outcry if a law were passed that left intact
anti-discrimination laws against religious discrimination but excluded
Jews because Jews are financially secure (yet another stereotype).

The fact that there hasn't been much of an outcry makes me realize
(yet again) how lesbigays are the whipping boys of the religious right
and how too few straights will defend lesbigay rights.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:39:45 GMT

sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

[...]
>I would like to see the colorado amendment extended to all minority
>groups. Then we might see "equal rights for all" instead of privelges
>granted by the government depending on how politically profitable it
>is.
[...]

Would you then also support an Amendment that said Jews and Anglicans
may not be covered in laws against government and private
discrimination on the basis of religion?

If laws against private discrimination are to be outlawed, it should
be don't all at once, not one characteristic (religion, race, etc.) or
minority group at a time.

BTW, the sponsors of Amendment 2 *support* laws against private
discrimination. They wrote in one of their newspapers that blacks
deserved such protection while gays did not. There evidence was the
same kind of numerical information that is used to support quotas.
Specifically, they said that blacks below the poverty line earn less
than the average American, who earns less that self-identified gays.
(Can you find the statistical flaws in this reasoning?)

- Carl

p.s. Statistical flaws: *Everyone* below the poverty line earns less
than average, and financially secure gay people are much more likely
to identify themselves as gay. Also, averages are not meaningful since
it discrimination against individuals, not averages, that is being
regulated.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Organization: NewsRUs
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 07:26:33 GMT

In article <EVERETTM.93Jan8172138@noman.Cayman.COM> everettm@Cayman.COM (Mark Everett) writes:
>
>Let's suppose that there are certain inalienable rights (i.e., life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness).  If a person is perfectly capable of a number of jobs available,
>but no one allows that person to work because he has some minor characteristic that isn't
>liked, hasn't that person been denied the right to life (i.e., he can't buy any food or
>shelter) and the pursuit of happiness?

The problem with "rights" is that you infer that, because you have rights, you can compel
me to behave in a certain way.  Certainly I should not be allowed to prevent you from
pursuing happiness or your right to life.  However, if I own a business I should not
be compelled to employ you for any reason.  If you can't get hired you can start your
own business, grow your own food, or whatever.  You have no "right" to force someone
to help you pursue your happiness.

>Even if a particular discrimination doesn't directly deprive someone of their rights, it
>doesn't seem difficult to find indirect rights deprivation.
>
>--
>.................................................................................
>Mark J. Everett	    : Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
>everettm@cayman.com : Phone 617-494-1999, Fax 617-494-5167, AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH

James
-- 
James W. Brown		-  I dream of the day when conservatives learn   	-
			-  the difference between a sin and a crime and  	-
			-  liberals learn the difference between a       	-
			-  virtue and a requirement.      --William A. Niskanen	-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:15:50 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.93Jan6110234@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <C0F4sH.n1K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>   This is true. However, it still does not constitute legislating
>   bigotry any more than, say, re-legalizing drugs legislates
>   heroin use.
>
>This analogy is incorrect.  The Colorado law removed the ability of
>gay men and lesbians to seek recourse for discrimination.  A better
>analogy would be if society made drug treatment illegal (and kept
>criminalization of drug use).

Your analogy boggles my mind. I have no idea how it
applies. Mine is correct. Legalizing drugs does not
legislate drug use, legalizing discrimination does not
legislate bigotry. It seems quite simple to me. 

>Your argument is also ignorant of the facts.  Incidents of
>discrimination are already occuring in Colorado.  Hate-crimes against
>gays and lesbians have also nearly doubled.  There are people in
>Colorado that have taken the passage of Amendment 2 to mean that
>bigotry and violence based on a persons real or peceived sexual
>orientation is alright.

What does CO #2 have to do with violence against anyone?
Do you have any evidence that had CO #2 not passed
violence would have lessened?

>In an earlier article, you claimed:
>> Show me how
>>white, straight males have more than equal protection _before the
>>law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
>>people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
>>advantages. 
>
>In Colorado, gays and lesbians are less equal, before the law.  They
>cannot seek recourse for hate-crimes committed against them.  They
>cannot seek recourse for discrimination is public services, jobs, or
>housing.  

What, it is legal to murder homosexuals? That's news to me.

>People that murder gay men and lesbians are routinely found "not-guilty" or
>guilty of a lesser charge by many juries throughout this country.  A
>defense of "attempted seduction" by the victim toward his murderer is
>often enough for the jury to justify the action.  This type of _legal_
>discrimination is pervasive in our socity.  In Colorado, it is now
>part of their constitution.

It seems to me that this is an argument for education
and self defense, not more laws. 

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Request for Manifesto
From: tbeaudoin@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 9 Jan 93 20:07:38 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu

	If anyone out there has a copy of the Politically Correct
Manifesto that was posted here not too long ago, i would love to have
a copy to give to a very-conservative student of mine (who would 
enjoy it).  Please forward it to me via private e-mail..  thanks!!!!!

Thomas Beaudoin

TBEAUDOIN@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:6126 alt.politics.equality:51 alt.society.civil-liberty:7337 talk.politics.misc:66950 alt.politics.homosexuality:9277
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:59:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan7.193333.10575@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan7.035827.19080@Princeton.EDU>,
> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>|>>"We do not have an anti-gay policy... The problems Boy Scouts are
>|>>having are with people trying to get in - the gay community, the
>|>>homosexuals, the atheists."
>|>>Burford Hill, Western Regional Director, Boy Scouts of America. 
>|>>5 June 1992, San Francisco Chronicle
>|>
>|>I never understood why someone would *want* to join an organization like
>|>the Boy Scouts that made it clear that it didn't want them.  Actually, I
>|>never understood why someone would want to join the Boy Scouts.
>|>
>
>Actual, its that scouts and scouters, including myself, discover that 
>they are gay and still want to be part of the scouting movement.
>
>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV

Then why not create the Queer Scouts?

Ted
ZZ
-- 
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.politics.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:25:29 GMT

gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson) writes:

[...]
>Your example shows the problem with Harassment, not hiring practices or 
>discrimination. A few well timed firings would probably help the situation.
[...]

So you want to make on-the-job harassment illegal, but not on-the-job
discrimination? Assumed that the libertarian position was that even
have-sex-with-me-or-lose-your-job harassment should be legal.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:32:35 GMT

In article <C0oHrs.1II@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)  
writes:
> sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
> 
> [...]
> >I would like to see the colorado amendment extended to all minority
> >groups. Then we might see "equal rights for all" instead of privelges
> >granted by the government depending on how politically profitable it
> >is.
> [...]
> 
> Most all antidiscrimation laws are neutral in the sense that they
> protect both majorities and minorities. They typically of the form:
>     "Discrimination on the basis of X shall not be allowed in Y."
> 
I would not call that being neutral. That sort of law prevents people from  
discriminating privatly. While I dislike private discrimination I do not  
think the government is justified in preventing people from discriminating  
as they choose. Additionally discrimination is a very tough term to define  
percisly making it easy for minorities to claim discrimination even when  
there isn't. Also some affirmitive action and quotas have a problem in  
that they force people to hire (or whatever) people on the basis of  
minority status not merit.
> Where X is, for example, religion or race and Y is, for example,
> housing or employment.
> 
> The only discrimination-related law that I know of that is not neutral
> is Amendment 2. It outlaws, for example, state policies of hiring
> without regard to gay sexual orientations while allowing state
> policies of hiring without regard to the straight sexual orientation.
> 
> Don't let your opposition-in-principle to laws against private
> discrimination blind you to Amendment 2's flaws.
> 
> - Carl
> -- 
> Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
>  = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From my read of amendment 2 it prevents the state from giving homosexuals  
special treatment which I advocate not just for homosexuals, but for all  
minorities. (see my response to one of your other posts)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:30:48 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

> >>The only way one could possibly claim that the
> >>Colorado amendment is in violation of the 14th amendment is
> >>that it does not rule out the possibility of heterosexuals
> >>claiming discrimination on the basis of their heterosexuality.
> >
> >Buzz! Wrong answer.
> >
> >Amendmant 14, section 1, sentence 2, phrase 2.
> >"nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty, or property,
> >without due process of law"
> >
> >A law allowing discrimination against homosexuals is allowing
> >the citizens of the state to deprive homosexuals of property,
> >and possibly liberty and life. This is most certainly contradictory to
> >the 14th amendment.

Nice try, but no cigar.  The 14th only says that the STATE ITSELF may not take
such action; it says NOTHING about private action.  By your interpretation, the
federal Civil Rights Acts would be redundant.

> Discrimination deprives one of property? Please explain that one
> to me. Discrimination may 'deprive' one of potential higher
> earnings, but potential higher earnings is not property.

Ouch!  Another error.  At least in New York, it can be considered a marital
asset (see the Mark Gastineau divorce case; he was ordered to pay alimony on
money he could have earned but did not as a pro football player).  But I
digress.

I would have voted for the Colorado amendment, although I would have preferred
that it include all legal orientation (by which I include homo-, hetero-, bi-,
and a-); the Oregon one went too far, though.

  |
--+-- Andy Lipscomb
  |   lipscoja@(ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu,vuctrvax.bitnet)
  |   Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: davew@willow03
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:20:22 CST


In article <1isol6INN1jl@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.215948.417@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> 
> > >Actual, its that scouts and scouters, including myself, discover that 
> > >they are gay and still want to be part of the scouting movement.
> > 
> > Then why not create the Queer Scouts?
> 
> 1) It's the wrong name for an an organization that would accept ALL boys.
> 2) The name "Scout" is protected by Congressional Charter to BSA and they
>    have successfully defeated all alternative groups who have used it.
> -- 
Uh, ever hear of the "Girl Scouts"?
-- 
Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:26:42 GMT

In article <C0oHBq.A1@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)  
writes:
> sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
> 
> [...]
> >The colorado amendment did not make homosexuals  
> >second class (unless by second class you mean they don't have special  
> >discriminatory priveleges enforced by the government. In which class  
then  
> >white het men are also second class)
> [...]
> 
> You have been misled. Please read the Amendment (enclosed).
> 
> Amendment 2 makes it illegal for Colorado to make a policy of hiring
> *state workers* without regard to sexual orientation. Do you really
> consider a policy of hiring *state workers* on merit and without
> regard to sexual orientation a "special discriminatory privilege"?
> 
> As far as private discrimiantion. Amendment 2 allows laws that
> prohibit private discrimiantion on the basis of hetrosexual
> orientation and forbids laws that prohibit private discrimination on
> the basis of homosexual orientation. In this way it makes, gays second
> class citizens.
> 
> - Carl
> 
> =================
> civil-liberty/amendment2.co.usa
> =================
> AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)
>    "Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or
> departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
> municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce
> any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual,
> lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
> relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or
> entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
> minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
> discrimination."
> 
> -- 
> Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
>  = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
according to the amendment which you kindly provided me a copy of  
homosexual orientation cannor be used to "claim any minority status, quota  
preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination". That is what I  
call preventing homosexuals from receiving any special priveleges. If that  
makes them second class citizens then it also makes white hetro males who  
cannot claim any special priveleges second class as well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality