HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: so much for #2, but now time for '94: the "cloven hoof" amendment
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:49:24 GMT

We have made only one step.  Let us not stop there.  The passage of
Amendment 2 last week is not the end of the road; there is much more to be
done.

There are people who go out *in*public* and eat such foods as pork or
shellfish.  There is a clear, unambiguous Biblical statement that such
foods are unclean, and that eating them is forbidden.

The people who eat pork, and especially those who eat shellfish, can be
found in the same dens of liberal iniquity that voted against Amendment 2
last week...most particularly "Lesbian-Homoville" (aka Boulder).  You may
have heard that these folks have above-average income, but did you know
what they do with it?  They import the forbidden fruits of the sea...they
will bring creatures, thousands of miles, only to boil them live and then
eat them.  They take their ill-gotten gains and spend them on such
perversions as you can hardly imagine.

This must stop.

Unfortunately, we cannot outlaw the practices outright...at least not at
first, not until we alter the sensibilities of the state.  But we can make
a first step in the next election, in 1994.  Please join with me in the
support for an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado, to
prohibit any special protection for pork- and shellfish-eaters.  For far
too long, these people have been flaunting their disgusting practices
before us.  You may have seen the abortion films, but have you ever seen a
pig being gutted?  Do you know how lobsters are cooked?  My friends, this
is not for the weak of stomach, but there are things going on out there
that will disgust even the folks who watch the 10:00 news every night.

Now, I'm not a bigot, and I wouldn't try to force my beliefs on anyone,
but I can't ignore the fact that God wouldn't eat sausage...and did you
know that the word "jambalaya" translates as "stew of the devil"?!?  Now
that we have laws which prohibit any restriction on general scrutiny of
what enters some bodily orifices, why should other orifices have different
protection?  Are we going to stop at allowing our communities to reject the
people who do things of which we do not approve in the privacy of their
homes?  I say no!  Even more, we should drive out those who eat things in
public of which we do not approve!  Unfortunately, the current state of
laws and the liberal-sympathizing US Constitution do not allow us to drive
out these sinners, but we can still make a minor start by denying them
housing and jobs.  Please watch for progress on the "cloven hoof amendment"
over the next two years.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Xref: sparky co.general:1703 co.politics:1764 co.politics.amend2.discuss:7
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:03:32 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver

and why in the hell should it be moderated?
so we only get to see what they want us to see?

nice try.
Tim
Newsgroups: csu.general,co.general
From: weibler@CS.ColoState.EDU (darren walte weibler)
Subject: Denver Bronco Tickets
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 16:44:03 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department



For Sale:  2 Denver Bronco Tickets for Sunday Night Game (11-15-92)

We have 2 tickets for the Denver Broncos vs. New York Giants game
at Mile High Stadium November 15, 1992, 6:00 PM.  The tickets are
together on the East Side on the 25 yard line (section 443 for those
who want to know).

The tickets belong to my parents, and they are asking $30 each (the face
value of the tickets).

In brief, my description of the seats would be good.  You can read the 
numbers on the jerseys of people anywhere on the field, but you can't
read any names on jerseys.

Contact Walt or Dorothy Weibler at (303) 431-1180  (days) or
                                   (303) 421-4485  (evenings)
for more information (or reply to me via email and I will have them
contact you).

Darren Weibler
(303) 484-0944
weibler@cs.colostate.edu

Xref: sparky co.general:1673 co.politics:1737 co.ocs:3 co.politics.amend2.discuss:4
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.ocs,co.politics.amend2.discuss
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:33:28 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1992Nov9.184111.5685@colorado.edu> tim@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Tim Hunter) writes:

>co.ocs - a discussion group for the faculty, staff, and students of
>	the optoelectronic computing centers at the university of
>	colorado and colorado state university.  there is no
>	intermediate distribution between the "cu.*" news tree and the
>	"co.*" news tree that will allow folks at both universities to
>	read the group.

Why not just create a new hierarchy, ocs, and your two sites could then
take them.  Or have the folks at csu just start taking cu.ocs (or you
could take, I presume "csu.ocs")?  I presume both CU and CSU have
some larger net neighbor in common who carries cu and csu hierarchies?
Or just feed them cs.ocs directly?

I don't object to co.ocs, but I'm not sure that all the sites who get
co.* should have to specifically delete co.ocs from their sys files
should co.ocs turn out to have huge volume, etc.


>co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss} - most of the discussion on the
>	general newsgroups for co, boulder, and cu, in addition to the
>	co.politics newsgroup has been the recent passage of amendment
>	2.  These newsgroups are intended to provide a specific place
>	to discuss the issues surrounding amendment 2 and to get clear
>	information about the amendment and it's legal implications.
>	The info group is moderated, and will attempt to present both
>	sides of the issue fairly.  The moderators are:

>		jules@cs.colorado.edu	(Julie DiBiase)
>		blough@cs.colorado.edu	(Eric Blough)
>		gina@cs.colorado.edu	(Gina Cherry)

Is this an attempt to "rid" co.general of this discussion?  Or an
attempt to augment it?

My hunch is that the topic will die down in co.general after a while,
until the next election at which time I have a hunch there will be a
"repeal the CFV amendment" round of postings.

Frankly, I'm glad to see co.general get the traffic.
(It's not like it gets so much traffic it's impossible to read.  If you
think it is, go check out comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware! :-)
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@oldfield.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of Amendment 2
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 18:21:21 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@oldfield.colostate.edu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 2832@col.hp.com, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>
>I am not a lawyer, that is a trait that I am sure I share with almost
>everyone who reads or posts messages in this group.  That fact does not
>stop me (or anyone else, it seems :-) from posting my opinions on legal
>matters.
>

I, too, am not a lawyer, but I believe that an Ammendment to the Constitution
determines what is Constitutional.  Therefor, in the State of Colorado, this is
Constitutional.  Whethere or not this is constitutional under the Constitution
of the United States of America will be determined when the first case goes to
the Supreme Court (probably late next year!!).

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Xref: sparky co.general:1731 co.politics:1823 boulder.general:1014
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
Subject: Re: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:11:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov11.155149.14744@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>I agree totally with you, where you say, that the content is what
>matters. And that is where I end agreeing with you. If you read
>the amendment, you'd see that it has precious little to do with not giving
>gays protected status as a minority. All it does is take away the civil
>rights of a certain population group. Nothing more.

I could be wrong, but Jan, wearn't you the one saying that without
this bill heterosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals would have been
protected from discrimination as well? At least that is the big story
I've been hearing on the net! So everyone lost their rights...we voted
to loose our rights. But what we are really saying is that sexual
orientation of any kind is not a basis for special protection. But the
gay rights groups are labeling this as a hate bill (propaganda), yet
get on CFV's case for promoting the bill as stripping gays 'special'
rights. Same tactics on both sides by people who believe extremes. Have
politics ever been different?

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}__I've got seven in the clip and one______|
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}__in the chamber. Will that be enough??___|
|__lesatz@phakt.usc.edu________[]{}__If it ain't, I'm in BIG trouble!!_______|
|______________________________[]{}__________________________________________|
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:07:23 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov8.082557.29333@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>It's quite clear to me that the supporters of 2 are the bigots and
>stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
>hating gays. I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
>certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
>away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
>people are damn tired of it!
>
Whoa. One second, eric. The supporttes of 2 voted yes. The foes voted No.
Either you meant to say that "the FOES of 2 are the bigots...", or you
plain misunderstood the whole amendment.

I can see how people might be getting sick of others getting special rights,
but if you read the amendment (the original, posted here a while back),
or followed the debate here closely, you would have seen that amendment 2
never intended to give anyone special rights. Let me rephrase. Voting
NO on 2, would not have given gays special status or rights. And, more
important, that is not what gays are after. The only thing passing 2 did,
was make discrimination against a group LEGAL. You as a lawyer should
see that. And as an intelligent thinking human being you should be able
to see, that legalizing discrimination os WRONG.
There are no laws giving gays special staus, and there would not have been.
That was not at issue. AM2 takes away the right to do something about being
discrimintaed against. And it's not like the laws that existed included
only gays. It included ANY sexual orientation. That includes you.

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:49:18 GMT

In article <BxMJIu.I0J@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>: The law itself doesn't impose any discriminatory measures. Any 
>: discrimination that results from it would come from private
>: citiznes, not the government. Since repeal is possible, it does
>: not, as you suggested, "deny any chance of protection."

>No, but it does make that chance of protection a little less "equal" in the
>14th amendment sense of the term: "All you other guys, if you want legal
>protection, just get a law passed.  But you homos, first you gotta repeal
>a constitutional amendment, and only then can you try to get the law passed".

However, the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan ruled that inequal
levels of protection against discrimination don't necessarily violate
the Fourteenth Amendment.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: markli@teal.csn.org (Mark Losinski)
Subject: Move to Charleston South Carolina?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:30:14 GMT

I am considering a move to Charleston, South Carolina.  I would like to hear
from people who have lived there -- what is it like?  What is the fitness
community like in that area?  Are there any triathlons, marathons, etc?
Other general information would be help too.  Please respond via email.
Thanks.

mal
-- 
Mark A. Losinski                            Internet:  markli@csn.org
Voice:     (303) 635-6739 
Newsgroups: co.general
From: devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:50:39 GMT

Eric LeSatz (elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:
: It's quite clear to me that the anti 2 people are the bigots and
: stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
: hating gays. I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
: certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
: away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
: people are damn tired of it!

I'd like to know why you think gays, lesbians and bisexuals had special
protections or rights, and how you think Amendment #2 would stop that.

All I see Amendment #2 doing is stripping a large group of people of their
basic civil rights to little things like jobs and housing.

			-D

--
Devin Hooker (RP90)  (SotM 7/91)  DoD #0034  devin@boulder.colorado.edu  ------
"It's being both that's a bitch."                                      --\--- /
"I wanted to take my brain to hell and back and see what I had left."  \  \ //
"This howling in the distance, it's a captivating sound.                \  \/
        Can't tell if it's ecstasy or pain..."  -DW                      \/
Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.235605.7626@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.221811.27141@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> johnsonr@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Richard Johnson) writes:
>>...the law rightly
>>prevents me from firing someone because their skin is black or brown.
>>The law should also prevent me from firing someone because they are a
>>gay or lesbian.
>
>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that such descrimination is a 
>terrible thing, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>the role of law and government?

Who said 'automatic'?

If you can think of better, more effective ways, we're all ears.


>Certainly there are other ways to
>prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the 
>practice (which would be required for legal protection, in any
>case.)

Ok, list them.


-- 
David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                 knapp@spot.colorado.edu

Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.230442.29969@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.190750.7383@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that such descrimination is a 
>>>terrible thing, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>>>the role of law and government?
>
>>Who said 'automatic'?
>
>Well, since I've seen a great deal of discussion about laws, and no
>considerations of alternatives, I get the impression that people 
>consider laws the automatic, first choice.
>
>>If you can think of better, more effective ways, we're all ears.
>
>I'm not sure about "better" in general, but since laws are no longer
>an option...
>
>I'd suggest anyone who is discriminated against unfairly write
>letters to local newspapers, stating who is they think is discriminating
>and why (e.g. also include _evidence_ of the discrimination.)
>Everyone who opposes such practices, and feels the evidence of
>discrimination is compelling, should boycott that business. 
>(This probably won't work at all, unless a some newspapers pick
>up on the idea and give it some publicity. It also won't work 
>in places where most people don't care about discrimination. But
>then, places like that didn't have anti-discrimination laws _before_
>Amendment 2 passed either. In places like Boulder, it has a reasonable
>chance of working.)


It has a *chance* of working, I agree, but it probably won't. A law,
on the other hand, will.

While the other methods you've mentioned are certainly worth persuing, they
cannot solve the problem to any significant degree, as you have even
mentioned will probably be the case.

Since these items are often tried (just saw a letter in the Camera on 
Friday?) and they rarely work, we realize big guns are necessary. Laws
are necessary. It's not the way I think it should be or how I like it 
but I'm afraid no other method really works.

I do not agree that it is automatic though.




-- 
David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                 knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it.

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:58:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.085059.29589@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>This entire argument is stupid!! So an employer can just fire you
>because you are homosexual since there are no laws giving
>homosexuals special rights? 
>
>I guess this also means that I can be fired because I drink Coke
>instead of Pepsi, read the Post instead of the News, like FOX better
>than ABC, ride public transportation instead of owning a car, have
>brown hair instead of blonde, have a phone number with an 871 prefix,
>like IBM's better than Mac's, have more than 5 video tapes, have a
>2400 baud modem instead of a 9600, live in Denver and not
>Littleton....how many more reasons do I have to give?
>
>That's the 2 supporter's argument as I understand it. You are saying
>that since there are no special laws protecting homosexuals that you
>can be fired for that reason. Well, I guess this now means that since
>Coke drinkers don't have special protection they can be fired too.
>Where do you draw the line???
>
>Eric
>______________________________________________________________________________
>|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}__I've got seven in the clip and one______|
>|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}__in the chamber. Will that be enough??___|
>|__lesatz@phakt.usc.edu________[]{}__If it ain't, I'm in BIG trouble!!_______|
>|______________________________[]{}__________________________________________|


I have an additional question. Do they have to prove you're homosexual?
Or could they just claim you are and fire you? i.e. you're an assertive,
non-submissive female, so therefore you must be lesiban and we don't want
any of them working here" This is only a question and theoretical situation.

Flames to /dev/null.


Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@oldfield.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 17:16:14 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@oldfield.colostate.edu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 50183@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU, valeria@lamar.ColoState.EDU () writes:
>To those that are moaning and complaing about how Amendment #2 is going to 
>
>bring the end of the world to the gay community, let us examine the  
>
>Amendment as it was written on the ballot. 
>
>	Shall there be an Amendment to Article II of the Colorado Constitution
>	to prohibit the state of Colorado and any of its political subdivisions
>	from adopting or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
>	homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships
>	constitutes or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected
>	status,quota preferences, or discrimination.
>
>My question to the fools and idiots is: Where in the law does it say that
>
>discrimation is lawful. 

If I read correctly, the VERY LAST WORD is discrimination!!! Therefor, with a filter,
we see, "prohibit the state of Colorado from ... enforcing any law or policy
which provides that homosexual ... conduct ... entitles a person to claim ...
discrimination.!!!!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:58:37 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

> Do the existing (I guess they're gone now) discrimination protection
> laws specif that only homosexuals may not be discriminated against
> based on 'sexual orientation'? Or do they say that noone may be 
> discriminated against? Seems to me it's just as illegal to discriminate
> against a white person as a black or green person. I don't see why 
> legislation passed to protect homosexuals wouldn't also protect hets.
> if it were indeed protecting against discrimination 'based on sexual 
> orientation'. 

Heterosexuals could also use those laws, and at least one has: an anti-
gay activist who was kicked out of a gay meeting of some sort and used
the anti-discrimination law to sue. (He later campaigned for Amend. 2).


> 
> >My guess is most of those who voted "Yes" on Amendment 2 do not hate
> >homosexuals and do not condone discrimination or persecution directed
> >toward homosexuals.  The voters just do not see any need or reason to
> >give special rights to homosexuals, rights which heterosexuals do not
> >have.
> 

The amendment states that gays do not have the right to claim discrimination.
All other people have this right. You (if you are straight) have the right 
to claim discrimination if you are arbitrarily fired, evicted, etc. Not that
you will necessarily win the suit, but you have the right to try. Therefore
it seems to me that Amendment 2 is in direct contradiction to the Equal
Protection clause in the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution.

I read yesterday that a Channel 9 (?) news announcer, on election night,
referred to Amend. 2 as "legalizing discrimination against gays," whereupon
many people called the station to complain about this "interpretation."
Unfortunately the language of the amendment (and of the ballot summary of
the amendment) makes it clear that this is exactly what the amendment does.
Somehow (maybe because of pro-2 propaganda that concentrated on the 
"minority status" clause of the amendment), a lot of people who voted for
2 did not realize that it legalizes discrimination. IMHO this can only
be because they did not read even the ballot summary, or because their
reading skills are extremely poor.
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Newsgroups: co.general