From:  (Craig Webb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: A State monopoly on morality
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:13:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc

Your concept of broad exclusion creates, by it's prime ingredient of learned behavior, a tremendously
conducive platform for an environment promoting unlimited bigotry, blatant prejudice & hate
freely exercised on those different from the individual defining their own morality.  (Your) FOA
translates to human division on the highest order, for any reason.  It's result would not be
freedom to associate, but rather NOT freedom to associate.

By all means, define your own morality.  But don't ever let your moral conception infringe
on my right to live, work and play in this country.

When an individual is facing discrimination for whatever reason (morality [eg: homosexual],
ethnic [eg: Serbian], physical [muscular dystrophy], etc.), for housing, a job, use of a restroom,
where does the responsibility lie to ensure equity?  Obviously, not the individual demonstrating
the prejudice.  This ultimately limits Mom & the kids on where they can live.   Example:
Recently, a clown manager of an apartment building had a sign in the window stating 'no kids'.
He used (your) FOA.   Then he took the sign down.

(Your) FOA obliterates equity.  Absolutely totals it.  Gone.  Loss of freedom will be the only result.

>     > (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>     >It prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a homosexual.
>     >(Actually, because it doesn't define sexual orientation, I
>     >don't see how a day care center could refuse to hire a guy
>     >wearing a North American Man-Boy Love Association T-shirt, or
>     >someone with a history of rape convictions).

About NAMBLAH,  a bunch of these guys can get together and talk all they want, but as soon
as they act (infringing a child's right), or possess child porn, etc., it's over.  This 'monopoly
on morality', as you put it, provides protection for the kids, and provides a guideline of
suggested behavior for those void of morality, unable to  ensure it's existence as a component
to thier own individualism.

> (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> One of the most disturbing trends of laws like AB101 is the hidden effects.
>
> Specifically, the slow growth of the State to "monopolize" morality.
> 
> I believe that each individual must be responsible for his/her own
> morality, including its definition...... but, it is still an
> individuals decision.

What next?  What do you do with it?  How far can you go?
Hitler takes responsibility for his own moral definition.  Does that somehow justify the
devastation and loss of life he created?  What about Charles Manson?  Dan White?  Mark
Chapman?  Ultimately, no one can take responsibility for our own morality but ourselves anyway.

> The concept of Freedom Of Association (FOA) is that [it] provides a means of
> justice. 

Justice is the establishment of rights according to the rules of law or equity.  Justice is equity.
Equity does not provide the allowance of discrimination.

> We need this if we are to decrease the coercive mechanisms of the
> State.

Decrease them to what?  Where do you stop?  Total Intolerance?  Lack of acceptance and
respect?  Hate crimes?  Where is the justice in this?

> For example, the criminal that raped a 15-year old girl and then cut off
> her arms leaving her for dead was paroled a few years back....

He should never of gotten out of prison.  Ever.

> However, it is just not felons. As Clayton poses above, it would be
> legitimate to deny employment (at a day care center) because someone is
> wearing a shirt with a political statement concerning a legitimate
> political lobbying group.
 
Yes, it most certainly would!  Laws designed to eliminate discrimination do not
dictate a "morality" which would force someone to hire a convicted rapist or a
card carrying NAMBLAH guy at a day care.  This is ridiculous.

> We need to resist the growing encroachment of the State in monopolizing
> morality. Moral decisions are up to each of us as individuals, and a key
> to making moral decisions is Freedom Of Association.

What about mentally challenged?  Psychologically impaired?  Dangerous?
Destructive?  NAMBLAH proponents?

What If:  The county bus system decides they want to exercise their FOA by limiting
service to passengers of the blue persuasion.  This is OK?  Because of demand, we
have a blue bus, a red bus, a green bus.  This restaurant serves blue, that one green.
What happens to freedom of association now?

\aliscafo/