From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:13:36 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <95622@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >>Once you've accepted the principle that a group of people can
    >>get together and coercively interfere with another group of
    >>people, you're fucked.
    >>
    >Well then, everyone is fucked is there is no appointed body
    >to look out for INDIVIDUAL interests. Anti-discrimination
    >legislation, when it all boils down to a head, is about
    >INDIVIDUAL rights, not group interests. But when the only way
    >to try to get these individual rights is through group
    >action, it is sadly understandable that some people
    >misperceive the basic nature as a group interest.

EXACTLY!!! And since it is only the coercive groups that have fucked
with individual rights, IF WE ELIMINATE THE COERCIVE GROUPS THERE
WILL BE NO MORE FUCKIN' WITH 'EM!!!

In California, it used to be illegal for mixed race marriages.
Then that coercive law was eliminated. Now, only individuals can,
for their OWN desire, marry within/without their race (something I
think even you agree is O.K. to do).

    >>Which is why I say that it doesn't matter whether its two or
    >>two million people that get together to conspire to steal my
    >>property or interfere with my rights -- it's still wrong.
    >>
    >But with one person, it's suddenly right?

Nope - theft is never right. 1 or 1 million. ONLY MUTUAL VOLUNTARY
NON-COERCED AGREEMENT IS. PERIOD.

    >>Of course, you forgot to mention what a cabal of homosexual
    >>pigs would do if I opened (or tried to) a trendy bar/eatery
    >>in the Castro district.
    >>
    >To make the analogy, you would have to refuse service to
    >them.
    >
    >Or make another analogy, in which a predominantly homosexual
    >company refuses to hire a straight person. (Gee, how would
    >they know if they didn't ask him, or how would they know if
    >they didn't feel compelled to believe gossip which assumed he
    >was straight?) Such a situation I feel would be just as
    >reprehensible.

Gee - I am very familar with just such a case. It is their right.

    >>Somehow, I think the cabal would decide not to patronize me,
    >>no matter how good the food or eats were, just because I'm
    >>not one of them. And thus, I'd be out of business.
    >>
    >Well, you might be surprised to know that there is surprising
    >tolerance among gay people. As long as the food is
    >good---we're VERY discriminating eaters! :)

Sorry -- it was a setup line. I tend to agree. So why is it not likely
to be subject to a homosexual cabal yet somehow the hetersexual cabal is
so "dangerous". Money talks ...

    >But you make a good point nonetheless. I think the best way
    >to get rid of discrimination is to boycott the
    >discriminators. Money talks where decency can't get through.

Yep -- FOA is very very powerful.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

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