HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:25:30 GMT

In article <bhayden.721309933@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>...Equal protection
>has three levels of scrutiny: strict for race, religion, national origin;
>intermediate for sex and alienage; and rational relationship for all others.

The standards are a bit less clear than this: Strict scrutiny is applied
to (in effect) groups the Supreme Court likes in connection with
right that they approve of. (We have good, liberal Courts like the
Warren Court to thank for this, since this was the method they 
used to justify violating property rights and letting government
economic controls stand.) I, personally, think this says something
rather pathetic about recent Courts and the attitude (or perhaps, 
contempt) they have towards the Constitution.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: valeria@lamar.ColoState.EDU ()
Subject: Amendment #2
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 06:01:07 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

To those that are moaning and complaing about how Amendment #2 is going to 

bring the end of the world to the gay community, let us examine the  

Amendment as it was written on the ballot. 

	Shall there be an Amendment to Article II of the Colorado Constitution
	to prohibit the state of Colorado and any of its political subdivisions
	from adopting or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
	homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships
	constitutes or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected
	status,quota preferences, or discrimination.

My question to the fools and idiots is: Where in the law does it say that

discrimation is lawful. Once again the press, the gay rights groups and the

poltical groups are misleading the people of Colorado.l voted for #2 and still

have no problems sleeping.

I know that I will be called all types of names and will be flamed for these

comments but who cares about narrow minded bigots.

It was a good day when #2 passed.
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:23:47 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

Furthermore, You'd have a hard time digging up gays (or homosexuals/lesbians..)
that WANT special rights...
That's just not what they want.
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:38:12 GMT

jv> Jan Vilhuber

jv> YOU still have all the rights endowed to you by the United States Consti-
    tution. Gays no longer do. (And that was AM2's fault).

  The USC doesn't endow rights. It limits the federal government's power.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:55:37 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

>Actually, have _you_ read the amendment? Or just the summary on the
>ballot?
>There is no
>reason to think the ballot summary of amendment 2 was completely
>accurate. I've seen people quoting and debating the text of the
>summary, as if it were the actual amendment. It might be interesting
>to see what the amendment really says.

It would have been better to have read it before the election.  I have
posted it in another message here.  Speaking for myself, yes I did read
the proposed amendment in full, and carefully.  EPOC (the main opponents
of #2) distributed many thousands of copies of the exact legal wording,
because they WANTED voters to see exactly what there were voting on.

CFV, the sponsors of #2, distributed even more thousands of copies of an
8 page tabloid size description of the amendment, roughly an order of
magnitude as much space.  In all of they, they failed to find any room
to reprint the actual TEXT of what people would be voting on (which would
have occupied less than 1% of their space).  Think about that; the
opponents publish the text as widely as they can, the proponents go out
of their way to avoid letting anyone see what the amendment's actual
text is.  Does that suggest anything at all to you?

It is no accident that few of those voting for #2 had read the actual
text of the amendment, compared to opponents.

Here is how the CFV tabloid summed up the meaning of #2:

 "Amendment #2 says basically one thing: that homosexuals, like all
  Americans, deserve *equal rights*. ... Vote YES on Amendment #2
  and cast a vote for the true meaning of civil rights".

So why didn't they reprint the actual text of the amendment, so people
could tell if that was "basically" what it said or not?

Because that's not what it basically said, and they were lying.

It was a slimily deceptive campaign by CFV.  I do believe that CFV hates
gays, and that the anti-hate discussion is relevant.  I do not believe
that most of those who voted for #2 hate gays; if they did, CFV could have
had the courage to print the text of their amendment in their literature,
rather than having to hide it.

Please DO think about this.
   ~z~
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:59:40 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov10.224927.26171@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.165244.6839@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>>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.
>
>>As he or she is in any other legal proceeding. What's your point?
>
>No, in contrast, criminal courts are required to provide a lawyer
>at public expense to defendant who wants one. A can be accused of
>armed robbery and never have to pay a cent in legal fees. 

Provided he can't afford one, of course. Since discrimination suits
under the Denver/Boulder/Aspen ordinances involve employers and
landlords who rent multi-unit dwellings, one assumes that the defendants
won't be paupers. Also please note that since these are municipal
ordinances, they'll be tried in municipal courts - we're not talking 
about lengthy appeals to the federal judiciary here. 
>In 
>civil courts, where discrimination cases are heard, there is no
>such requirement.
>

>
>>>Since the rights of the accused, and the rights of the employer/landlord
>>>are also involved, this argument doesn't go very far. 
>
>>ACCUSED??????
>>Of *what*, pray tell?
>
>Of discriminating. What else were we talking about?

Excuse me, your statement was that "the rights of the accused, and the
rights of the employer/landlord are involved." That, to me at least,
implies that you're talking about two different folks. Perhaps the
English language has changed recently... 

Steve
From: imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 10:10:20 -0700
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
Distribution: co
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin-gw.solbourne.com

In article <1992Nov8.085059.29589@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>That's the 2 supporter's argument as I understand it. You are saying
>that since there are no special laws protecting homosexuals that you
>can be fired for that reason. Well, I guess this now means that since
>Coke drinkers don't have special protection they can be fired too.
>Where do you draw the line???

I can be fired because I drink Coke rather than Pepsi.  However, I
have recourse in the state of Colorado because there is no law
specificly denying me my rights to bring discrimination suits because
I drink Coke.  However, if I was fired because my boss thought I was
gay, then the passage of amendment 2 means I SOL.  I can't file a
discrimination suit because it would be based on homosexual
orientation, which is specifically denied now, due to those little
words at the end of the amendment "or claim of discrimination."

Warner


-- 
Warner Losh		imp@parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:25:10 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

I applaud Andrew's article. Well written, and reflects exactly the way
I feel, except in one small point.

In article <1992Nov7.023836.20102@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>The logic escapes me.  It could mean the polls were wrong, or 
>>it could mean people were confused by what a Yes vote meant or ...
>No, people knew.  It's sad, purely sad.
>
Actually I have become convinced that at least a COUPLE of people
didn't understand. I asked a few people why they voted yes, and they said
because they didn't want special rights for gays (homosexuals, lesbians,
and bisexuals). That is exactly what the damned CFV wanted us to believe:
That Am2 was about special rights. But as someone on co.politics pointed
out very nicely (and correctly): Am 2 was about taking away the right to
make any laws concerning special rights, and some more blabla, and 
discrimination. The first two really don't matter and were just (I quote)
"a smokescreen". There never were any special rights and that is not what gay
people strive for. The last, and only important point, which was glossed
over by the CFV (and thus missed by a sh*tload of people, I suspect), is that
there ARE laws concerning the rights of discrimination based on sexual
orientation. That means ALL sexual orientations: hetero, homo, you name it.
Now with AM2, every STILL has that right. Everybody except the gay community,
that is.
So by saying, "I was voting against gays having special status and rights",
people clearly demonstrate, that they didn't read and only voted on
what they heard, which was, unfortunately, WRONG! (And more to the point, that 
was exactly what the CFV wanted).

Let's hope this insult to my intelligence gets repealed.

(Useless disclaimer: I am not gay, and I voted NO on AM2.)
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general
From: jason@fc.sde.hp.com (Jason Goldman)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:19:08 GMT


The thing that bothers me is that the situation can occur where I (I'm 
heterosexual) can be fired.  Now I ask my boss why he fired me.  He says,
"I thought you were a fag."  Unlike being black or Jewish, I can't easily
prove my sexual preference one way or the other.  In any case, under
amendment two, I have *no* recourse for discrimination.  The issue is not
whether I am gay or not, but rather it is an acceptable reason to discriminate.  
Jason
jason@gibson.sde.hp.com

Newsgroups: co.general
From: dcm@csn.org (David C. Menges)
Subject: U S WEST ISDN Open House
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:06:30 GMT

We just received an invite to this; it sounds like it's open to the public.
Note there are two places - I don't know the difference.

What:	U S WEST "Trip '92" Open House
Where:	Multi-Image Broadcast Center
	7979 E. Tufts Ave., 1st. Floor
	Denver, CO
When:	Nov Tue 17 and Nov Wed 18, 8am-4pm.

What:	ISDN Primary Rate/Video Demos, and Open Houses
Where:	1801 California, rm 1910
	Denver, CO
When:	Nov Tue 17 and Nov Wed 18, 12 noon-4pm.

For info or to RSVP, call 303-965-7004.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:11:16 GMT

Did anybody notice the blurb on CNN today about the homosexual Navy officer
who is suing the Navy over being discharged?

He is suing on the basis that the military prohibition of homosexuals is
a violation of the 14th Amendment.

A Federal court agreed with him today and ordered the Navy to reinstate him.

Looks like good precedent for the Amendment Two case.

Scott

--
************* Repeal Amendment 2! - Shame On You, Colorado. ******************
J. Scott Farrow-Student SysAdmin/Programmer, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing & Network Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA, phone: (303) 492-4428
Internet: farrow@spot.colorado.edu, farrow@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.000404.29998@mercury.cair.du.edu> tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!) 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.  Heterosexuals
>>don't have such rights.  If a heterosexual has her or his rights
>>trampled upon only because she or he is a heterosexual, what legal
>>recourse would she or he have?  None.  There are no special rights for
>>heterosexuals to protect them from discrimination based on sexual
>>preference or lifestyle.
>
>Do the existing (I guess they're gone now) discrimination protection
>laws specif that only homosexuals may not be discriminated against
>based on 'sexual orientation'? Or do they say that noone may be 
>discriminated against? Seems to me it's just as illegal to discriminate
>against a white person as a black or green person. I don't see why 
>legislation passed to protect homosexuals wouldn't also protect hets.
>if it were indeed protecting against discrimination 'based on sexual 
>orientation'. 

I can clarify this where Boulder is concerned.  The law in Boulder
states that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation, NOT that one cannot discriminate on the basis of
homosexuality.  It protects -- excuse me, protected -- people who
are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.

No one was trying to create new civil rights in this election,
but a group of bigots managed to muddy the issue and get enough
support to take away a heck of a lot of civil rights.  Welcome
to Colorado, where gay employers can fire their straight employees
and straight employers can fire their gay employees for no good
reason.

-- 
Jill Lundquist		jill@cs.colorado.edu		DoD #882

When hell freezes over, grab the ice skates.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.212951.9543@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>I didn't say capitalism was bad, but it needs to be tempered.  Anything
>taken to extremes is usually bad, as is "pure capitalism".  (If it worked
>we wouldn't need ANY regulations, eh?)

How exactly, do you know this? I don't recall a total lack of economic
regulation having ever been tried. (E.g. as soon as major problems
developed in teh late 1900s, the initial solution was government
regulation. Solving said problems without government interference
wasn't, to my knowledge ever tried.) I think saying "pure capitolism"
is bad and regulations necessary, is an unproven assertion.

>This is one place where the press serves a valid function, pointing out
>"micro" problems that the goverment is too big to deal with.

Since the government regulations aren't (as you point out) enforced and
the matter is delt with on pressure from the press and consumers, 
what is the point of the regulations?

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
From: gina@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Re: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.155149.14744@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.050423.2667@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>>gina@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry) writes:
>>Goodness!  Boycotts...lawsuits...contact this guy...contact that guy.  An
>>amendment was passed which says homosexuals may not receive protected status
>>as a minority group.  So what?  I would say there's been entirely too much
>>"I've been discriminated against, gimme my due" going around lately anyway.
>>So the group who got the amendment on the ballot is a bunch of scumbags.  It
>>seems to me that the *content* of the amendment is what should be of primary
>>concern, not the *organization* that got it on the ballot.
>>
For the record, I did not write the above.

Gina Cherry


Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:25:01 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
> But it is already legal to deny people housing based on lifestyle choices--
> just look at any condo or apartment complex that bars children.  If the
> "breeder" lifestyle is not protected, I see no reason why other lifestyles
> should be any more priviledged.

Wrong, this was made illegal a couple years ago. (No, I don't have the
references. Do the rest of you really keep tonlots of newspapers just in
case you need to quote them on notes?) Anyway, only "senior citizens
complexes" may now bar families with kids, I believe. FWIW.
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:41:43 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

urban@CS.ColoState.EDU (david urban) writes:

>This law will give people the right to refuse housing, job opportunities,

But it is already legal to deny people housing based on lifestyle choices--
just look at any condo or apartment complex that bars children.  If the
"breeder" lifestyle is not protected, I see no reason why other lifestyles
should be any more priviledged.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
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 18:22:39 GMT

Paul Ciszek (pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: 
: Now I ask, which of the rights *protected by the United States constitution*
: are denied gays and lesbians as a result of No. 2?

Read that first amendment: the bit about the right to "petition the Government
for a redress of grievances", and the fourteenth amendment, which in its
broadest sense prevents the states from abridging any of the rights or denying
equal protection under the law.

It is admittedly a stretch, so I am not at all confident it will be struck
down.  But that is the issue - homosexuals have now become the *only* group
that is prevented from petitioning their local governments for a redress of
grievances.  OK, they can petition, but the local governments are forbidden
from acting on that petition by passing anti-discrimination legislation.  This
seems a violation of "equal protection" as it pertains to the right to
petition.

--
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: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:16:22 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov9.233849.16820@colorado.edu> juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.202700.4436@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.143812.8402@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>>
>>>  The USC doesn't endow rights. It limits the federal government's power.
>>
>>No, the body of the Constitution doesn't endow rights.  I haven't
>>read the whole document from beginning to end in quite a while,
>>but I would swear that I seem to remember *something* about the
>>first ten amendments to the Constitution enumerating quite a few
>>rights...
>>
>
>Well, sort of.  The first *nine* amendments enumerate certain rights, and
>the tenth guarantees all the other ones that weren't actually mentioned
>by name.  8-)   

Well, sort of. ;-) The first *eight* enumerate rights, the Ninth reads:

	The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
	not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
	people.

The Tenth reads:

	The powers *not* (emphasis mine) delegated to the United States
	by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
	reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Steve
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:32:35 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:

>That last word is where CFV (boo, hiss!) overstepped its bounds.  This means
>that I can fire you for being gay.  Simple.  No deep thought required.

>"So why are you firing me, Mr. CFV?"
>"Cause you're a fag."
>"Whew!  And I thought I might be doing a bad job."

How about the following exchange:
"Why are you firing me?"
"OUT!"

It is my impression that this is entirely legal.  For one job I held, I signed
a contract saying that employment was a relationship that could be terminated
at any time by either of the two parties involved-- I could stop working
for them whenever I chose, and they could stop paying me whenever THEY chose.
Provided the person being canned is a white male, is the employer obligated
to justify their decision?


Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: co.general
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: Safeway's instant rebate (spelled incompetence)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:16:51 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Another good reason is:  a Safeway store refused to allow me $20
cashback, even though I has a Safeway check cashing card (from
another store in another town), unless I provided my SSAN.

I've not shopped Safeway since.
-- 

 To the cat, the experimenter is problematic.