From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:55:27 GMT

ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu (HENDRICKER ALAN DAVID ) writes:

>minority?  Well, for one, companies would begin to establish "quotas" for
>homosexuals, just as affirmative action has forced companies to hire blacks
>and females.  So, would it not be possible for a person to claim
>homosexuality simply to gain this minority status to have a better chance
>at getting a job?  Asking for proof of homosexuality is preposterous, so
>this situation is not so unlikely as it first may seem.  This, of course,
>is not a problem with other minorities.  

>Now, consider a situation.  If I owned a house, or was looking for a
>roommate, and I advertise in the paper, or such.  If amendment two succeded
>(or failed, depending on how you read the durn thing) laws could be passed
>which would make it illegal for me to decide that I did not want a gay
>housemate or roommate.  Now, if I owned a house, and had children, I would
>want to raise them in the way that I thought right.  Now, perhaps that I
>believe that homosexuality is wrong.  (I don't, but we'll go with it)
>Would I want a homosexual to influence my children in a way that I believed
>wrong?  Of course not, yet legisation could be passed that would require
>me, under the penalty of fines, etc, that I cannot refuse such a person?

Not true. My understanding of all civil rights laws (certainly the Boulder,
and Denver anti-gay-discrimination laws) is that homeowners who rent part
of their property may discriminate against anyone they like. You do not
have to have a gay housemate, or Black or anybody else you don't like. This 
only applies to owner-resident properties.

>This scenario occurred in New York.  Two females who were renting a room
>and looking for a roommate turned down a woman, simply because she was
>homosexual and they would not feel comfortable around her.  Well, after
>some lawsuits, the roommates ended up paying something like 3k in fines and
>months of sensitivity classes etc.  

I have doubts about this, do you have a reference?

>The issue of homosexuality is a touchy one, no doubt, but it needs to be
>approached in the *correct* manner by the legal system.  Amendment 2, in my
>opinion did a poor job of trying to approach the problem.  Certainly the
>legal system needs to do a better job at protecting the jobs and rights of
>the homosexual community.  However, "special rights" need not be
>established for this to be accomplished.  The persecution of the
>homosexuals is real, but I will not sacrifice my minute rights as a white
>male on an issue which can be apporached in manner which makes that
>sacrifice unnecessary.

I have yet to see or hear of one homosexual person who wants minority status.
The only thing they seem to want is to not be fired or kicked out of their
apartment because they are gay. Amendment Two has just made that legal. That
is blatantly unconstitutional as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

Scott




>Alan Hendricker
>ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu


> 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu