From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:52:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hptrane.fc.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Ops Mgr (ENS@tigger.jvnc.net) wrote:
: 
: >Every single state, county, and municipality
: >in the US that I know of has laws on the books protecting some groups from
: >discrimination. 
: 
: (Its just this kind of overly broad, completely unsubstantiable generalization
: that can make one look really foolish...)

Perhaps, but until you come up with a counterexample, my statement stands.  Do
you know of any location within the United States where you can legally refuse
to hire an African-American?

:  Well isn't it about time that a state has finally decided that no one
: group of individuals should be granted more favourable treatment over
: any other.

Perhaps, but Colorado isn't that state.  They have apparently decided it's OK
for some groups to be granted more favorable treatment, but not others.  Which
is OK in itself, but it would have been nice had reasonable guidelines been set
up and established for who can and cannot receive more favorable treatment,
rather than amend the constitution to say "gays can't ever get more favorable
treatment; everyone else can if their local governments allow it".

That is, admittedly, a fine point.  The real problem is the phrase "claim of
discrimination".  There is nothing "more favorable" about being to work at an
available job you are most qualified for, or obtain housing you can afford.
There are cases of people being denied these rather mundane privileges because
they are gay.  Anti-discrimination laws simply equalize the situation; they
don't
 
:  You seem really screwed up with this, how can any state pass a law that
: forbids people "from obtaining any civil rights protections"?
: 
:  Completely preposterous.

Then I suggest you join in the protest against Colorado's amendment 2, because
it does precisley that.  Note I am *not* asking you to participate in a
boycott; I am rather ambivalent on that.

"Civil rights" are, generally, the rights I described above (employment,
housing), together with a more amorphous right to service at a public business.
A civil rights violation occurs when someone denies a person employment,
housing, or service because of some non-germane factor.  Civil rights
protections are laws that make such denial illegal - in other words,
anti-discrimination legislation.  Colorado's amendment 2 specifically prohibits
any anti-discrimination legislation to protect civil rights on the basis of
sexual orientation.

How can I make this clearer?  Colorado's amendment 2 forbids homosexuals from
obtaining civil rights protections.  Homosexuals in Colorado are the only US
citizens ever specifically denied civil rights protections by any state
constitution.  It truly is as simple as that.  I don't claim people who voted
for this amendment hate gays, and I don't claim that the amendment encourages
hate crimes.  I simply state as a matter of fact that the amendment, for the
first time in US history, explicitly denies civil rights protections to a
specific minority group.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel