From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:42:36 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <C0JMI0.2yF@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:

>Steve Pope writes:
>  Mike, I have to admit that you are usually quite consistent in 
>  our political philosophising, with the singular exception
>  hat your self-description as a "liberal" is bizarre.

>Steve, I would suggest that you do not understand my usage of
>``liberal''. I would also suggest that the reason for this is
>that you have bought into the pop usage, meaning ``left'',
>that is, socialist or social agendist, or more pejoratively
>like Republicans (Rush Limbaugh, say, on the radio) use it
>to mean ``tax-and-spend-our-money-on-social-programs-Democrats''.

I don't think he has -- and I think you're insisting on an excessive 
distinction between your brand and all others.

>My quarrel with this usage is that it robs us of a tremendous
>political philosophical heritage, from John Locke, through Voltaire
>and the philosophes, Jefferson and Adams and the Declaration of
>Independence and the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of the Rights
>of Man, on through J.S. Mill and Lord Acton,
>and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
>Amnesty International. 

Yet many of the "pop" liberal -- not that there's anything especially
"pop" about the term; it's just not the one you like, and "pop" is a
convenient pejorative -- causes are *also* derived from these things
by their advocates.

>My problem is that I don't know of any
>other word to call the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson
>but ``liberal''. 

How about "Jeffersonian"?  

(It might have saved you that enormous sentence above, not to mention
a good deal of what follows.)

>Central to liberalism, you see, is the formulation of the Rights of Man. 

I don't see.  I see that *a* formulation is central; I'm not sure 
that we all agree on the specifics.

>Now, the Rights of Man have
>their basis in what Locke called Natural Law. That is, they have
>the possibility of absolute moral judgment, and human free moral agency
>(and consequent moral responsibility) as their foundation. Rights

Yet that absolute moral judgment has limits.  Limits, in some cases,
on what *can* be judged; limits, in some other cases, as to the 
appropriateness of *applying* such judgments.

>are construed as inherent properties of individual human beings, by
>virtue of their humanity (i.e. by virtue of their free will and the
>possibility of choosing morally correctly---if this indeed were *not*
>so [that is, if ever there were a successful scientific study of human
>behaviour demonstrating either a genetic or an environmental determinism
>in human moral choice-making), then I think Rights would be out the window],

Overlapping parentheses -- how pomo of you!  8-)

Again, it is only by observation that we come up with the set of rights
we consider -- perhaps by argument, later on -- to be fundamental.  Note
also that these rights are not defined as the same set by everyone.

>and *not* by virtue of a agreement among a democratic majority, or by
>cultural construct, or by economic luck of the draw. Rights are powers
>which individuals have that can never be voted away *justly* (they
>certainly can be violated).  And this is regardless of the social benefit
>thought to be consequent on their dissolution. OK, so I hope I have made
>it clear that liberalism is distinct and opposed to socialism or social
>agendising. 

You haven't.  Do you suppose that Jefferson had no social agenda?  Do you
suppose that *any* writer on rights had none?  And that these agendas
weren't reflected in their writing?

>It is also distinct and opposed to a right-wing concern with
>nationalism, with patriotism, with militarism, and with the imposition of
>tradition and authority for their own sake. Liberalism can certainly be allied
>with conservatism (especially as I think a social or a fiscal conservatism),
>but it is quite progressive as well, and apt to oppose conservatism
>where conservatism would conserve essential injustice. Liberalism
>stands essentially against the power of government, or rather
>for there being well-defined limits on the powers given to government
>(i.e. for constitutionalism and the Rule of Law). You may also
>be thinking by now that by ``liberal'' I really mean ``libertarian'', but
>I would say no, that ``liberal'' says there are some powers not given
>to governments which powers we can deduce from moral philosophy, whereas
>``libertarian'' goes rather further I think in saying that perhaps government
>would be better not exercising even some of its legitimate powers.

Great.  Now, what is it, and how does it work?  *Does* it work?  And what 
do the various "rights" -- e.g., to life or liberty -- mean in practice?

>You give an example of what would be wrong with CO2:
>  As for the CO2-type measure, this measure singles out
>  homosexuality as a category that has special legal 
>  treatment.  Anybody who truly believes the line that
>  all this measure does is "exclude [gays] from special
>  legal treatment" is way off base.

>  Let me explain by the simplest possible example.

>  If a Colorado employer decides to fire an employee because
>  he is heterosexual, that employer would get sued
>  up the wazooo for wrongful termination.

>  If a Colorado employer decides to fire an employee bacause
>  he is homosexual, because of CO2, the employer cannot
>  get sued for wrongful termination.

>  So obviously, CO2 is not about equal treatment.  It is
>  about enforced discrimination.

>Now, Steve, I think you should understand by now from what I have
>written in response to Evelyn about CO2 that if something like your
>scenario *is* the case with CO2, then I would change my mind and
>would oppose it. What I don't now believe is that what you have said
>is true is what the law really means. (I am willing to be shown otherwise,
>however.---I am not a lawyer.) 

Read the statute.  Now consider a real case -- the firing of all gay
Cracker Barrel employees -- and show how a suit brought in Colorado
would NOT run up against CO2, and show how that firing is consistent
with liberalism.  (I.e., show what your brand of liberalism means
in that one practical case.)

>You see, if your point is that one may
>use typically any grounds for ``wrongful termination'' suits *except
>now* homosexual or bisexual orientation, then I doubt it.

Well, that's *exactly* what the statute says: homosexuality is *not*
grounds for a discrimination suit, and "Wrongful termination" in this
case means termination on grounds of discrimination.  Yet it's bloody
obvious that termination on grounds of heterosexuality *would* be (and
is and ought to be) actionable.

>I doubt that one can sue for wrongful termination on the grounds
>that one is too tall, say, or wears glasses, or because one was fired
>for body odor. 

Depends on the situation.  If these things have nothing to do with 
one's ability to perform (food servers might have to deal with the 
body odor problem, submarine crews with tallness, pilots with poor
vision), then, yes, one can sue.  Why should one's wearing of glasses--
certainly an accepted social behavior--keep one from entering data
or whatever?  

>My understanding is that such wrongful termination
>suits can only be based on claims of discrimination on the basis
>of sex, or race, or a finite discrete set of other special categories.

Nope, not the case.  Workers are protected from capricious firing.  And
with good rights-of-man reasons, too.

>If there were a law saying you shouldn't be fired on the grounds
>that you are heterosexual, and if CO2 were in effect (so that there
>were nothing protecting you from being fired on the grounds that
>you are homosexual or bisexual), *then* I would agree with you
>at least that the law protecting heterosexuals from being fired
>would constitute a breach of equal protection, and I think that
>this law would be wrong. But, I would perfectly well support
>the inclusion of ``heterosexual orientation'' in the list
>in CO2 (remember, I'd support adding just about anything to the list
>of groups for which there ought to be no special status or privileges
>or basis for claims of discrimination), and I don't think that CO2
>means quite what you say it does. (As I said, I am willing to be
>convinced otherwise.)

Suffice it to say that 

a) the statute does *not* say thatl

b) the intent of the statute was nothing like that, either.  CO2 was
*not* the product of rights-of-man liberals like yourself, but of
homophobic religious bigots who would exclude atheists like yourself
if they could get away with it.  

>  I would have more respect for somebody who simply comes out
>  and says they don't like gays (disgusting as such
>  a person would be), then for somebody who tries to 
>  insult the public's intelligence by describing these
>  anti-gay initiatives as fair and equal.

>I don't think either initiative is exactly equal. The Oregon
>one I think is morally repugnant. But the Colorado seems
>fair to me, which is why I have said I would agree to it.

Yet you don't examine its crucial legal aspects--intent and likely
effect.  It was intended to take equality away from homosexuals and
may do just that if it is not found to be unconstitutional.

>The point is, I think that we have legislated a bunch of laws,
>and come to accept a bunch of laws, which at bottom I think are
>not fair. What CO2 says to me is that we shall not make more of these
>unfair laws on the basis of this new social concern. I agree that it

Fine.  But you're not a Colorado court, and it's what the law says to
THEM that matters.  And it says to them: don't consider complaints 
based on discrimination against gays.

THAT law is unfair, at top,  bottom, and in between.

>is thereby not treating this new concern as equal with other concerns
>(or for that matter with many other bases that might equally well be
>included but just plain aren't), but if these laws themselves are not
>right in the first place, I can't help but seeing CO2 as a good beginning
>for curtailing these wrong laws.

Which laws are those?  I'm not sure I can think of a law that CO2 addresses
that would be contradictory to your liberal (tm) philosophy.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books