From: thumim@nevada.edu (Scrooge McDuck)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:37:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>	All I can say is that while no group of citizens of this country
>deserves to be disciminated against, I hope that the issue of discrimination
>will not be twisted around.  Let's face it, it almost looks like the
>heterosexual white male is being heavily discriminated against.
>
Agreed but look at the issue from a minority's point of view.  The
heterosexual white male is the one that holds all of the power in this
country.

>	For one, nepotism is back.  I went to the Jack-In-The-Box in my city. 
>The Manager is Mexican.  So is every worker but one.  He is their (token?)
>white.  My brother (who is white) tried to work there last summer and did not
>get in.  He is quite intelligent--and he even had prior fast food experience at
>Taco Bell the summer before!
>
The hiring of minorities is not nepotism.  Unless, of course, all of
the other workers, except for the white male, is a relative or close
friend of the Manager.  That is going a little too far.  The Manager
has every right to hire whomever he chooses.  He doesn't have to hire
your brother based on intelligence or prior experience.

>	Additionally, if a gay person applies for a job and doesn't get it, it
>seems that they are beginning to immediately cry discrimination more
>frequesntly.
>
Not necessarily.  There are other reasons to cry discrimination for
not being hired.  However, one's distaste of the homosexual is more
evident that one's distaste of a woman or a black.

>But, if there was any trouble with sexual advances, I would treat a sexual
>advance by the heterosexual man just as severely as a sexual advance by the
>homosexual man.  I believe that regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual
>orientation, a person can act decently and work hard if they want to and are
>given the fair chance to.
>
What about the idea of sexual harassment.  Picture this:  A male works
in an office entirely dominated by women.  He is single.  The women
constantly ask him if he has a girlfriend or if they would date their
friend or their sister.  Finally, he says that he is gay, just to get
them to leave him alone.  Then he gets fired.  This is the potential
that has arisen in Colorado under the Amendment 2 issue.  Another
scenario is a man is harassed by male coworkers when they are
observing certain women in the work place.  He too is gay and if he
says anything about it, he can be fired.

>	I haven't seen the bill, but if there is any preferential treatment for
>homosexuals or ANY minority group...I will be quite angry.  Although this bill
>only concerns one state, it will set a precedent for other states.  If this
>bill is genuinely fair, then no problem...but most bills have trick clauses
>that make them a problem.  If fair is to be fair, then let all men and women be
>created equal and let no one be more supreme over anyone else.  (Otherwise, it's
>fair according to the side of advantage and that's NOT what America stands
>for!)

You raise a very interesting point.  It is inherent in humans to
discriminate.  It is part of us.  There is no possible way to treat
every person exactly the same as everyone else.  Having an
anti-discrimination clause in a Constitution or a law does not give
one side the advantage over another.  At least, it is not supposed to
work like that.  It is to bring those minorities up with the rest of
the world.

Peace.
Jon Thumim



Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex