From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear, hate, and the eternal companion, hate
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:05:19 GMT

In article <lm0nu9INN9jt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
    >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>>In Georgia, they have anti-sodomy laws. Which is a way of
    >>>saying "We, the State, are going to tell you two (or N)
    >>>consenting adults what you can or can not do".
    >>>
    >If both adults agree to the act of sodomy, then they are
    >consenting.
    >
    >>>In California, they try to have AB-101 laws, Which is a way
    >>>of saying "We, the State, are going to tell you two (or N)
    >>>consenting adults what you can or can not do".
    >>>
    >Where did the homosexual agree to be discriminated against
    >because of his sexual orientation?

Sigh - are you REALLY this dishonest?

Tell me, since WHEN did the landlord agree to be coerced?

Your logic is, well, fucked. By your logic, if John Straight does NOT
wish to have sex with Joe Gay, then Joe Gay has been discriminated against!!!

Tell me, why do you clearly see the concept of "mutual consent" in the first
example, but become totally blind to it in the second example?

    >>>The two states, and those two laws, are the two sides of the
    >>>same damn coin.
    >>>
    >Only if the nature of what you call consent is the same in
    >both cases.

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!!!!

Funny how fascist mindsets can call for freedom in choosing sexual partners,
but coercion in choosing living arrangements. I.e., we want to fuck WHAT we
want to fuck, and FUCK anybody that doesn't like 'cause we're going to
force them to deal with us.


    >>>Which is why it is refreshing to see the Colorado voters
    >>>start to put a stop to this nonsense of "victimology".
    >>>
    >The Colorado law prevents Colorado voters from passing a
    >particular kind of law. That sounds like coercion. If they
    >don't want the law, then why don't they just not vote for it?

Again, your logic sucks. Coercion is the initiation of force. The Colorado
law PREVENTS coercive laws from being passed. To say that a law that prevents
initiation of coercion IS coercion is 1984-doublespeak.

In any case, the BEST kinds of laws are those that explicitly prevent
coercive laws from being passed. As you don't seem to know, our Constitution
is full of such things. I.e., "Congress shall pass no law ./..


    >The Colorado law also prohibits laws that prevent
    >discrimination against homosexuals, but it does not prohibit
    >laws that prevent discrimination against heterosexuals.
    >Weren't you just complaining about asymmetrical legislation
    >in the hate crimes legislation discussion?

It dioes no such thing. It prevents laws from being passed which have the
effect of granting "new [supposed] rights" to minority, such "rights"
being usable ONLY by initiation of coercion against other people.

Coloradans can still discriminate against me, by say, refusing to rent to
people taller than 6'2".

Of course, I do believe that the law does not prevent localities from
passing anti-6'2"-rental laws, but then, if you were honest, you would
have to admit that such laws would be ridiculous.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

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