HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sherry@col.hp.com (Sherry Adair)
Subject: American Airline Travel Certificate
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:24:07 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division


	I have 4 certificates for discounts on American Airlines.
	They must be used by December 17st.  They are good
	for $35 off a round trip ticket of $199.00 or more, or
	$50 off a round trip ticket of $299.00 or more.

	There are some black out dates, and other rules, etc.

	If you are interested and might be able to use them,
	give me a call.  x5927

	Sherry Adair
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:20:22 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov9.005039.12900@colorado.edu> devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski) writes:
>Eric LeSatz (elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:
>: It's quite clear to me that the anti 2 people are the bigots and
>: stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
>: hating gays. I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
>: certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
>: away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
>: people are damn tired of it!
>
>I'd like to know why you think gays, lesbians and bisexuals had special
>protections or rights, and how you think Amendment #2 would stop that.
>
>All I see Amendment #2 doing is stripping a large group of people of their
>basic civil rights to little things like jobs and housing.

So you're saying that if there is not a law giving special protection
to a certain group they have no civil rights? I guess as a white
heterosexual male I don't have any civil rights either
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:32:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033033.57522@slate.mines.colorado.edu> ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu (HENDRICKER ALAN DAVID ) writes:
>...However, to
>my knowledge, all minorities are defined at birth.  For instance... one is
>born black, hispanic, female, etc.

Last time I checked, a "minority" was any group that includes less that
50% of the population. Not are persecuted minorities defined only
by genetics: Religious minorities have frequently been discriminated
against, as have political minorities (Communists, for example.)

(Also, females aren't a minority be any definition: The most recent 
statistice I've seen have women making up 50.5% of the general 
population: A _majority_.)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:29:12 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes:

>The Fourteenth Amendment grants equal protection for all citizens of
>the US.  Amendment 2 specifically denies homosexuals this equal
>protection by allowing people to discriminate against them w/o any
>legal recourse on the injured party's part.

The phrase is "equal protection under the law".  Meaning, murdering an
eskimo is just as illegal as murdering a sufi, and so on.  And it still
holds, amendment 2 or no-- shooting a homosexual is murder.  Stealing
from one is theft.  Homosexuals still have their constitutional rights
such as freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, keeping and bearing arms,
and so forth.  What they have lost is the right to "be a minority".  They
have, in essence, been "demoted" to the level of WASP's, as far as
minority status goes.

>>Employment and housing are *not* constitutional rights.  The Soviet
>>constitution guarenteed [sic] everyone a job, but the Soviet
>>constitution didn't work out very well. 

>I don't buy this.  Can you post a reference to a court case that this
>was decided in?  Can someone else post a reference to a case where it
>was established?  I recall from my civics class in HS that this was a
>basic right, but I no longer have my books to look up the specific
>cases that established this.

Well, the Soviet constitution has never been part of any US court case.
I could post the text of the US constitution, but I have found that for
some reason people do not consider that to be relevent to deciding
whether something is constitutional or not.  Remember, by the way, that
no court, not even the Supremes, can ammend the US constitution.  An
ammendment must be approved both by congress and a national vote.  So,
having a job can be as "basic" a right as you like, but until it is
inserted into the constitution by the process of ammendment, it is not
a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

Paul Ciszek pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | The Constitution may not be perfect, but
                                  | it's a hell of a lot better than what we
                                  | have now.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: ethan@earl.scd.ucar.edu (Ethan Alpert)
Subject: Re: Safeway's instant rebate (spelled incompetence)
Followup-To: co.general 
Summary: Another Safeways story
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:18:43 GMT


The last time I ever went into a Safeway:

Last winter I went skiing with some friends. I got dropped off at
my house. It was a snowy cold evening and the road conditions were getting
very unsafe.  A few minutes after I was dropped off I realized I'd left my 
wallet in my friends car. No problem I thought I'll just have them drop
it off the next morning when they come to town, they live 3 miles up sugarloaf.
There was no way that I'd be able to get my ford up to their house to get
my wallet.

Well I was getting hungry and decided since I still have my check book I'd
go to the local safeway at the Meadows shoping center and buy some food.
I didn't think writing a check for the purchase amount would be a problem,
given the fact that I know my drivers license number by heart, and that I 
thought they should be able to access my records in their prefered customer 
database. 

Well you guessed it, these safeway bastards wouldn't let me buy <$10  worth
of food. They said that I could have found my check book in the parking lot.
Boy was I pissed. I told them to look up my name in the database and they
said they couldn't. When I told them I knew my DL number they said that would
help either. Boy was I pissed. The service manager told me that this policy
is there to "protect the customers." This could not be farther from the truth.
They were protecting themselves, not the customers. After all if a check 
were forged the check owner would not be charged but safeway would. 

So to make a long story even longer I proceded to drive over to King Soopers.
After I explained my problem they let me write a check. I didn't mention my
experience at Safeway. I just told them that I lost my wallet but I knew
my DL number and that was it.

Never been back to Safeway since.

-ethan

PS this experience was not my only problem with safeway. The meat from their
deli seems to go bad overnight. You have to cook any fish you buy their within
10 min of buying it or it goes bad and the salads available at the deli are
garbage. They never responded to my requests for products and contue only to
sell "white bread and yellow mustard" type products.


--
Ethan Alpert  internet: ethan@ncar.ucar.edu | Standard Disclaimer:
Scientific Visualization Group,             | I represent myself only.
Scientific Computing Division               |-------------------------------
National Center for Atmospheric Research, PO BOX 3000, Boulder Co, 80307-3000
Newsgroups: co.general
From: ljlucas@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Lori Lucas)
Subject: Re: Leinenkugels (Was:Info on local tavern that has Packer games, Brats.
Organization: U S WEST Information Technologies
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:20:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.210840.25685@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> canderso@nyx.UUCP (Chuck Anderson) writes:
>I've seen Leinenkugels Limited for sale in Boulder.  I'm not sure if it's 
>still around or not.  I had it on tap at a Boulder restaurant, too.
>
>BLECHHHH!
>
>I had "leinies" 9 or 10 years ago when I was in Ill., and yes it was a
>sehr gut bier.  This new stuff is as bad as Corona; ptooey!
>

So it's not my imagination!  I knew it didn't taste the same!
			Lori Lucas

Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:22:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.001617.18465@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.195835.8649@colorado.edu> fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden) writes:
>>I have an additional question. Do they have to prove you're homosexual?
>>Or could they just claim you are and fire you? i.e. you're an assertive,
>>non-submissive female, so therefore you must be lesiban and we don't want
>>any of them working here" This is only a question and theoretical situation.
>
>It really doesn't matter: The employer doesn't even have to mention
>homosexuality in this case. Anyone can be fired for being "too 
>assertive" or "causing personality conflicts with other employees" or
>similar. The effect of Amendment 2, in this case, is that anyone so
>fired could not sue, claiming the real reason was prejudice about
>homosexuality.

*That* doesn't matter either. Your employer doesn't need to come up and
tell you "Jane, I'm firing you because you're black." This would 
obviously be a suicidal gesture.

Now this fact doesn't keep bosses from firing people because they are black,
right? Of course. In fact, a friend of mine works at a Sociology research
group at a major university. A black woman there, who had been doing literally
some of the best work ever, was fired. She was fired because they didn't
'have enough funds to keep her on'. Another person was hired immediately
to fill her spot. The person doing the firing had quite a history of
odd funding problems and it became clear that she was summarily firing
anyone who wasn't white.

And she never told them she was firing them because they weren't white,
yet it is clear racism, and it is being prosecuted as such. Luckily,
she *can* prosecute because there hasn't yet been a group which pushed
an amendment to their consitution which disallows Blacks to claim
discrimination.


-- 
David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                 knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it.
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:18:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.190510.6520@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>Sure, you could be fired because you drink pepsi, but you could also sue
>>>your employer because the firing was based on discrimination.  Amendment 2
>>>has revoked that right for homosexuals.

>>How, exactly, could you sue? To sue someone, you must they must have
>>either caused you real (and measurable) harm or have violated a
>>law.

>I've done some hiring and firing in my time and when I was, I had to literally
>be instructed by the corporate lawyer on what I could and could not
>even *ask* the potential employee. They could sue me for not being *hired*
>if I had asked them what their *age* was! It happens! (of course, this was
>in CA where they will sue you for looking out of the corner of your eye, but
>hey...)

California has _lots_ of anti-discrimination laws on the books, including
(I think) a law against age-discrimination. If such a law exists,
_anyone_ with even the smallest scrap of evidence of discrimination
can sue. But if there isn't a law on the subject, there must be
substantial evidence of harm. 

>Imagine what they could do if I had asked them if they practiced safe sex!

They couldn't sue for discrimination (probably: If California has laws
against discrimination on the basis of sexual practices, they might
claim the question _implied_ gathering information on and therefore
possibly discriminating because of, sexual practices. But that's
all dependent on the existance of a related anti-discrimination.)

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: haines@CS.ColoState.EDU (Matt Haines)
Subject: Re: so much for #2, but now time for '94: the "cloven hoof" amendment
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 18:28:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) says:
|   True,
|   there are too many homophobes out there who see the passage of 2 as a in-
|   dication of public support for them, however, I also see its passage as 
|   voters telling gays that they're (the voters) are tired of all the hullaba-
|   loo by the militant gay factions.
| 
|   Anyone else see it this way, rather than a license for gay-bashers?

I agree that some people voted because of this sentiment, however I
beleive that most people (sadly enough) who voted for 2 either didn't
understand the amendment (mis-informed, mis-interpreted) or feel 
strongly against gay people.

I've talked with a few people who voted for 2, and two of them thought
that 2 would give minority status to gay people if it passed (and 
were wrong, of course), the other two feel that gay people are an 
abomination and a threat to the family values (as they see them).  
Ok, so the latter two were Christians.

-- 
Matt

"I just calls 'em as I sees 'em"
-- 
Matt Haines                 | <haines@cs.colostate.edu>
Computer Science Department |
Colorado State University   | "Why waste time learning when ignorance is
Fort Collins, CO  80523     |  instantaneous"                   - Hobbes
From: randy@kcin.alphacdc.com (Randy S. Welch)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:11:33 GMT
	<1de4ejINNev0@marvin.solbourne.com>
Followup-To: co.politics,co.general
Distribution: co
Organization: Randy's own unix box..

In article <1de4ejINNev0@marvin.solbourne.com> gerber@solbourne.com (Andrew Gerber) writes:
[..CBS News Reality Check Quote...]

   Fundamentalist Christian groups have siezed the issue of gay rights as
   a lightning rod.  Bigotry works to rally ignorant people.  CFV
   (Coloradans for Familiy Values) received out of state money to fund
   the Yes on 2 campaign.

This I find very interesting.  ( outside money ) Guess where it probably
came from?  I could guess orginazations, such as Pat Robertson, James
Dobson, Jerry Falwell?  The religious right has it's own political goals
to acheive.  This is part of their plan to essetially take control ( or
finish ) of the Republican Party by 1996.  They have setup thier own
candidates/agenda in places such as San Diego.  ( This from an article in
the Denver Post Weekend Magazine a week or two before the election, plus
comments seen in other publications ).

There is talk of the Moral Majority re-emerging.

Beware of the religious right, it's not your wallet they want...

   Who will the CFV target next?  Unmarried straight couples living
   together?  Jews?  Blacks?  

This is my biggest fear about Amentment 2 and the CFV right here.

   I apologize to all the co.general readers for posting this to
   co.general; I've directed followups to co.politics.

There seems to be enough discussion on this issue to atleast repost parts
of this back to co.general. ( Plus I don't get co.politics, yet... )

-randy

-- 
Randy Welch   also known as..       (home) randy@kcin.alphacdc.com
Boulder, CO                           or   randy%kcin@csn.org
"MS-DOS is to computing as the      (uucp) {csn,scicom}!kcin!randy
 black plague was to Europe" - NH
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:12:30 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov8.172302.2690@colorado.edu> millert@nordsieck.cs.Colorado.EDU (Todd C. Miller) writes:
: >Sure, you could be fired because you drink pepsi, but you could also sue
: >your employer because the firing was based on discrimination.  Amendment 2
: >has revoked that right for homosexuals.
: 
: How, exactly, could you sue? To sue someone, you must they must have
: either caused you real (and measurable) harm or have violated a
: law.

I believe Frank is correct here.  Pepsi drinkers can be legally discriminated
against, as can gays.  The difference is, as I have now repeated at least a
dozen times, is that Pepsi drinkers have the option of uniting and lobbying
for local anti-discrimination laws.  Homosexuals have just now lost that right.

I can sympathize with those who say its their right to hire or fire whomever
they damn well please.  But we have now just made your right not to hire
homosexuals the only *constitutionally protected* right you have in this
regard.  Any other rights you have to discriminate are at the whim of local
authorities.  It seems to me that, regardless of whether you feel that
discrimination should be legal, one should be able to see it is WRONG to
constitutionally protect only certain forms of discrimination, while allowing
other forms to be illegal.  Either everyone should have the right to lobby for
protection, or no one should.

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Gina's crosspost
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:46:18 GMT
Organization: University of Denver

seems to me the purpose of the crosspost was to encourage an economy
crippling boycott of Colorado and Colorado products/services.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: johnsonr@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: Center for Space Construction, CU Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:18:11 GMT

elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:

>This entire argument is stupid!! So an employer can just fire you
>because you are homosexual since there are no laws giving
>homosexuals special rights? 

>I guess this also means that I can be fired because I drink Coke
>instead of Pepsi, read the Post instead of the News, like FOX better
[rest of the wonderful, silly comparisons deleted (sorry :)]

Note that homosexuality is no more a choice than skin color.  While I'd
gladly fire someone for drinking Pepsi, had I the power, the law rightly
prevents me from firing someone because their skin is black or brown.

The law should also prevent me from firing someone because they are a
gay or lesbian.

It will again in Boulder.

>Eric

Richard

-- 
Loudyellnet: Richard Johnson | Sneakernet: ECOT6-29 or ECNT1-6, CU Boulder
Phonenet: +1 303.492.0590    | Internet: johnsonr@Colorado.EDU
PGP 2.0 public key available on request
Speaker to avalanche dragons.   Do you really think they listen?
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:11:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.155743.25871@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that such descrimination is a 
>>terrible thing, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>>the role of law and government? Certainly there are other ways to
>>prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the 
>>practice 

>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that armed robbery is a
>terrible thins, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>the role of law and government? Certainly there are other ways to
>prevent it, assuming that people in general really oppose the practice.

However, the other ways do not as carefully protect the rights
of the accused. In the case of descrimination laws, this isn't
the case: The accused is sentenced to (at least) massive legal fees.

>Well, Frank, the Declaration of Independence states that the sole, legitimate
>purpose of government is to "secure [the] rights]" of the governed. 
>The Preamble of the Constitution states that the purposes of the document
>are (among other things) to "establish Justice,...,promote the general
>Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...". How's that for a reason?

Since the rights of the accused, and the rights of the employer/landlord
are also involved, this argument doesn't go very far. The preamble
states certain purposes, but the Constitution goes on the grant the 
government powers in certain, limited areas. I'm not suggesting
the government should _never_ protect the rights of the people, 
I'm just wondering why everyone assumes it is the _best_
choice to do so, in the case of discrimination.

>Certainly, it's possible to adopt other models: the anarchist model of
>"voluntary associations" has certain attractions, but I suspect that
>it degenerates into feudalism  in no time flat. 

Probably, but I haven't said anything about anarchy. Or do you assume
that anarchy is the only alternative, to complete government regulation
of every aspect of life?

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
From: rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS )
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:15:23 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov6.202518.11515@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.160017.9536@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>>
>>>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>>>it that way at all.  It is really a matter of special rights and
>>>privileges.  Colorado voters have decided not to grant special rights
>>>to homosexuals.  It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  
>>
>>I disagree.  Pre-Election polls showed Amendment 2 clearly failing and
>>yet it passed by a comfortable margin.  This suggests to me that
>>people knew that this amendment was bigoted.  I know how the 
>
>The logic escapes me.  

The logic being that people, when polled, lied about how they 
would vote on the measure for fear of showing bigotry. 

>as African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.  I could be totally wrong.  It
>could be that every voter who voted Yes on 2 is a closet skinhead
>bigot.  Could be, but I think that's a real stretch.  It could mean
>Colorado is a state full of hatred and bigotry, but I don't think
>so.

No, but it does mean that a majority of Coloradoans sided with 
bigots on this amendment.  (I do know which way the bigoted vote
went on this one).

>>Bigotry = Hate.
>
>I respect your right to your opinion.  Can you tolerate my disagreement?

We both have a right to express our own opinions, I am thankful for that.
I can tolerate disagreement.  Discrimination is intolerable.  

--
Rick Schoenhals
rschoenh@athena.cair.du.edu