From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:59:47 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
> Dan Kary (kary@col.hp.com) wrote:
> : Has it always been legal
> : to discriminate against homosexuals in these communities?  If not, why is
> : it now legal to discriminate?
> 
> Yes, it has always been legal in both Colorado Springs and in Fort Collins to
> discriminate against gays,

And later, Marc adds:

> I think you will be hard put to find an example where anyone has ever
> successfully sued anyone for discrimination without a specific law to back them
> up.

I was thinking of the case of Keith Meinhold who was returned to work at Moffett
Naval Air Station, by a court order, after being discharged from the Navy when
he declared his homosexuality on national television.

I know nothing of his case (other than the scant details above) but there must
be some basis in law for him to have filed the case and to have received a court
order.  I know that the military has openly discriminated against gays.  They
have also openly discriminated against women, and still refuse to allow women
into combat roles.  The courts and congress have to this point agreed with
the insistence of the military that it should be exempt from equal treatment
of these groups.  Whatever basis Meinhold had to file his suit could be used
by any homosexual in cases of discrimination in housing, employment, access to
public accomodations, etc.  The difference is that purveyors of housing etc.
do not have the military tradition of congressional and judicial approval of
discrimination against women and homosexuals on their side.

> BTW, the Fort Cllins Coloradoan (local newspaper) had a short article today on
> the effect of the housing crunch on the rental market.  They listed the various
> things you can and cannot do, listing "discriminate against gays" as something
> you can do,

> They also quoted someone as saying the day
> after the election, she got a call from her landlord telling her, "I've been
> waiting for this day - you're outta here".  Apparently this bozo had thought
> discrimination against gays was illegal before, and now he was finally free to
> exercise his bigotry.
> 
> Marc Sabatella

I think the Coloradoan and the landlord are equally confused on the meaning
of amendment 2.  I think amendment 2 just takes local and state government out
of the picture on this issue.  Whatever protection was available to Meinhold
in California is available to all homosexuals in Colorado.  I didn't mention
earlier that Meinhold's case is before a federal court, that should be 
obvious since it involves a branch of the federal government (Navy) where only
federal courts have jurisdiction.  Any municipal ordinances or state laws
in California would be irrelevant to Meinhold's case.

I think that the press and people opposed to amendment 2 do a tremendous
disservice to the State of Colorado and particularly its homosexual
population when they claim that amendment 2 "legalizes" discrimination against
homosexuals.  I don't believe that is the meaning or effect of amendment 2.
I think that anyone who uses amendment 2 as justification for discrimination
against homosexuals will ultimately discover that they are liable for civil
rights violations, regardless of whether the amendment is upheld or invalidated
in federal court.

Dan Kary

-- 
"And that, my leige, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped."
Newsgroups: co.general