From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: OR-9 text.
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:52:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Aug22.215244.8527
Organization: insert anything here

markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>> [lots of good stuff, go read the article]

>Personally, I have met more people in government who get off on being able
>to exert control over people than I have met outright phobes.  I think that
>this measure gives those power hungry people another outlet for control
>over people's lives.  I think that phobes are only one category to worry
>about.  Power hungry busy bodies are another.  There has already been
>some noise at the Tualatin Valley Recreation Center about keeping HIV+
>people from using the pool or shower facilities.  Since it is a public
>facility, the phobes and the 'control' people would be able to keep
>HIV+ people out (Mabon has indicated that restricting rights for HIV+
>persons was a natural outgrowth of this measure).

	Yes, while 9 dosn't require that private organizations discriminate
it will make it wasier for them so since "well, the state does, so it
must be OK/good for me/us to as well!"

>But what about a disinterested state government?  Since the measure is
>an amendment to the state constitution, the OCA would likely force the
>state to do its bidding in court.  I am unsure if an enacted amendment
>can be ruled unconstitutional when it is, in fact, part of the constitution.

	I don't think it can.  Unlike Colorado's 2 though, they way 9
reads it can be repealed.  Colorado 2 is different in that the nature of
the law precludes its repeal, though it doesn't have the same implications
that 9 does.  Neither of course is acceptable.  It almost looks like
the Fundies are trying two tactics to see which one works better.
In any case if either passes, we should expect to see fallout in 
many more states next year.  Given our apathy as a community, having,
oh say 12 of these going on at once will strain our resources completely
(theirs too I imaging, but they are much more connected than we are).

>A friend sent me email saying that some OCA storm troopers were recently in
>Seattle where they claimed that Measure 9 would allow employers to fire
>people for being homosexual.  They further claimed that if someone was
>fired for being homosexual, they would not be eligible for unemployment
>benefits since they were fired for engaging in undersireable activities.

	For all the stuff I've been saying, I had considered this one but
decided that it wasn't possible.  While it is true that people can have
a "firing form" that lists "being homosexual" as a valid reason (and 
in fact in Georgia, I believe that this is the case, at least for
the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain), unless you're caught having gay
sex at work, the "undesirable activities" can't affect unemployemt.
You could get fired, definitely just for being gay, but I'm not sure
that it could extend to unemployment benefits, esp. since you pay into
that system while you are employed.

	Of course this could be a red herring too.  OR:9 definitely
makes it impossible for gay people to use the state facilities that
their tax dollars pay for.  Perhaps that this is another angle that
we should be using "why should the state be allowed to prevent us from
the same things we are paying for with our taxes?"

>Does anyone from Seattle have any information on OCA activities up there?
>Apparantly, they were even in the audience for a local (Seattle) talk
>show recently.

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss