From: smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:23:37 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.165923.1412@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>> I'm curious what laws you are talking about.   There currently no laws in
>>> the Colorado that give homosexuals special rights.  If you use those words,
>>> I expect you to qualify them.

>Perhaps standing to sue, which anti-discrimination laws often grant 
>automatically? In general, one must provide evidence of real harm done
>and/or laws violated, before you can sue in court (i.e. you must have
>some plausable evidence to back up your claim.) For example, consider
>someone who is refused a job by one company, for reasons of sexual
>preferance, but is hired by another company in the same town for the
>same pay. In general, this person could not sue on the basis of
>discrimination (having suffered no tangable harm). However, if there
>was a specific law against such discrimination, the law's language would 
>generally allow a suit, despite the lack of real harm. 

They had to go through the trouble of finding another job for no just
cause.  That seems unfair to me.  Like, say, a someone gets harassed
and fired, for some irrelevent factor (whether it's listed on ordinances
or not).  I suppose you're pointing out that the courts have to draw
the line of where "real" harm was done - a practical measure.

But the determination, "real harm," seems irrelevant with Amendment 2.
If the discrimination involved was by homosexual or bisexual orientation,
Amendment 2 forbids the claim, regardless of harm.  Yes?

Relatedly, if widespread discrimination is involved, I can understand
putting the discriminatory factor on ordinances - as a specific effort to
counter widespread unfairness.

Like "real" above, "widespread" is another hazy distinction.

There are plenty of men driving around in pickups looking for "fags"
to beat up with the baseball bats they've stowed on board.  And there is
a prevalent and unrealistic disrespect for the existence of homosexuality
in itself.  I'd say the discrimination against gay people and gay-appearing
people is "widespread" so I'd say it's a "good" thing to have sexual
orientation included in non-discrimination ordinances.

Of course, Amendment 2 forbids that.  Even if we don't consider anti-gay
sentiment to be "widespread," this law says that even if it *becomes* so,
we cannot enact these laws to counter it.

>>The only law I'm aware of that singles out gays (not straights) for 
>>special *treatment* of any kind is the new Amendment 2, which 
>>explicitly *forbids* certain rights to gays, but not straights.

>The point is slightly moot: Gays are far more likely to suffer 
>from this from of discrimination, so they benefit preferentially
>from such laws.
>                          
>                                                    Frank Crary

You seem to be against non-discrimination laws in general.  You
can use the above argument for blacks, too.  That is, blacks benefit
preferentially from non-discrimination laws for race: special rights.

Of course, the way to fight non-discrimination laws is to come up with
something better and to work for that, and also work against *all*
non-discrimination laws.  The only alternative to these laws I've seen
in these discussions is boycotts.  Something I see as leading strongly
to a society of separate-but-equal enclaves.

--
--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu
--"It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil.  If
--they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men,
--the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."     Helen Keller
Newsgroups: co.politics