From: jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:52:10 GMT
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.

In article <13294@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>
>What if PETA had two equally qualified applicants, Phil,
>and another guy whos hobby was picking daisies?  Could
>they not use this as a discriminating factor?  And just
>who would enforce this discrimination?  The government?
>Should ACT-UP be forced to hire Patrick Buchanan?  When
>I last rented one of my rental units, I said no to a guy
>who had three large dogs because the walls are thin in
>places.  Was this wrong?  If so, why?  If not, then what
>is the difference between this and the example above?

Oh Mark, tell me that you left your terminal logged on!

Are you saying you see no difference between firing an employee
who is doing otherwise fine work when the employer finds out he/she
is gay (which is what we're *really* talking about here)
and not renting to someone whose three dogs make them unsuitable
for your thin-walled apartment???

>What if you wanted to rent a room in your house, and William
>Dannemeyer was the only applicant?  Would you want to
>be forced to rent to him?  What if he wanted to have
>sex with you?  Would you discriminate against him?

And should I presume you see no difference in either of these
situations either???

Do tell.

			*  *  *

What appears to be going on hear is the "Open The Floodgates"
arguments.  They go something like this:

From the Right:

"Heaven forbid that we should *ever* tell *anyone* or *any* employer
that firing a gay/black/etc person for reasons irrelevant to their
job performance is bad, because this would Open The Floodgates for 
[ pick your favorite absurd and extreme scenario here: "force a day-care 
center to employ convicted sex-offenders", "force you to have sex with 
Bill Dannemeyer", "Force you to hire a cat-torturer", "Have Big Brother 
tell you everything you can do", bla, bla, bla ]

From the Left:

"Heaven forbid that we should let *anyone* get away with saying they
don't want to associate with certain types of individuals (gays, atheists, 
Liberals), because this will Open The Floodgates for rampant racism,
total lockouts of certain groups from getting any jobs in this country,
bla, bla, bla."

There are grains of truth in each argument but I refuse to let the
agenda for discussing these issues be set by ridiculous examples
and comparisons, like the ones you made up.  Analogies are fine,
analogies are useful, but not when they distort the issue.

>Oh Jack, tell me that you left your terminal logged on!

My terminal was not left on: I believe employers should not evaluate
employees on anything other than that which would indicate how well
they can perform their job. Sorry this idea is too radical for you.


jb
---------

>> It is hard to imagine many things more irrelevant than whether Phil Ronzone
>> believes Gennifer Flowers.
>
>But did you believe Anita Hill?  :-)

That's irrelevant.  I believed that for George Bush to stand up unashamedly
and proclaim that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person he could
find to sit on the Supreme Court was a dangerous statement - many people
I knew died laughing.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7270 ca.politics:9714 talk.politics.misc:60942