From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Just for the halibut
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:22:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <10357@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># If the government passed a law saying that I had to paint my face
># green and walk on my hands, I also wouldn't comply.  If they pass a
># law saying that I can't burn my house down because it's too close to
># another, I would comply.  There's a difference.
>
>What is that difference?  That one is "reasonable" and the other is
>not?  What makes one reasonable and one unreasonable?

I use my intellect to decide whether to obey a law or not.  I can't
imagine what you do...

Take traffic laws, for instance.  It is illegal to drive over 55 mph on
the stretch of 280 between San Francisco and Millbrae.  Yet, if you were
to drive over that section of the road at 45 mph, you would actually be
doing something stupid and dangerous.

># #Reading the list of organization names in soc.motss is such a persuasive
># #example of how widespread the discrimination is. :-)
># 
># Clayton, I don't know whether you've always lived in northern CA your
># whole life but you might want to consider the fact that the tolerance
># shown in (some) Bay Area towns is the exception, not the norm.  Back
># in upstate NY, where I grew up, I knew a teacher who was gay and was
># fired when that was found out.  Despite the fact that he was supposed
># to be a decent teacher
>
>You have made an excellent argument that if you live in an area that
>doesn't tolerate gays, it would be best to be quiet about it, or 
>move somewhere more tolerant.  But if the population is that intolerant,
>how will you get an antidiscrimination law passed?
>
>Or is this just about using political power?

BZZZZT!  Wrong!  Again you've tied two facts together and failed to come
to a reasonable conclusion.  What I have done is demonstrate that there
are areas that (stupidly) discriminate against the rights of gays.  I am
suggesting that that should not be possible, under the law.


># Of course, you've refused to consider the case that some members of
># society dislike gays, some think they should be treated fairly and some
># just don't care.
># 
>#    don
>
>Fine.  Consider a society where a third actively disapprove of
>homosexuality, a third approve of it enough that they believe in
>antidiscrimination laws, and a third don't care.  (This may well be
>the situation in California).  What are the market forces that put 
>homosexuals at a disadvantage?  Unless the one third who are hostile
>control more than one third of employment or housing, their "prejudice"
>will cause them to lose potential employers and tenants, reducing
>their market size, and thus reducing their profitability.

"Market forces" do not describe the whole of reality, Clayton.  There's
also stupidity, intolerance, vindictiveness and flatulence.

IMHO, you're free to disapprove of homosexuality all you want.  If you
express that opinion, I'll refute it publicly and if you attempt to
block legislation aimed at giving folx a fair shot, my vote will cancel
yours out.  better give it up, old sod!

>This assumes, of course, that the prejudice is unreasonable and
>has no relation to the real world.

Like the unreasonable prejudice against bigotted fools? :v)

   don
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc