From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:43:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.015806.17561@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>>live their life without persecution.
>
>>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>>non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>>non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>health.  
> ^^^^^^
>Well ggeeeeee whiz Brian. Things that are possibly dangerous to the health of
>the general public are banned all over the place. Amazingly enough a majority
>think that this is a good thing! What the heck does that have to do with 
>whether or not gays have the right not to be discriminated against?

Well ggeeeeeee whiz, Stan.  Where do you see in my statement that I said it
was a bad thing?  In fact, I don't say that it is is good or bad, only that
it happens and why.

>
>>But in this battle the rights of a clear minority, have had little
>>weight in comparison to the greater good of the public.  That is the rights
>>of the majority have been deemed more important than the rights of a
>>minority.  
>
>Smokers are discriminated against due a demostratable reason. They could
>actually be harming someone else by smoking. 

BINGO!  Society, government, business can discriminate against a minority
for demonstratable reasons, ie. the potential harm to someone else.

>Evelyn's post ask for a 
>secular reason why we should allow gays to be discriminated against. Is this
>the best answer you can come up with? BTW if you have some proof that gays
>are dangerous to the public's health, simply by the fact that they are gay,
>I'm sure we would all like to know what that proof is.

Well, as you will read in another post, Gays are descriminated against from
donating blood due because of they're lifestyle has made them potentially
dangerous to the public's health.  And this is not restricted to gays,
there is a long list of people that are forbidden from donating because
their lifestyle has made them potentially dangerous.  (IV drug users,
people who pay for sex, having visited certain countries in the last year,
etc.)  But the questionairre is very blunt, "Have you had sex with a member
of the same sex?"  At the bottom, it says, "If you have answered YES to any
of these questions, you must NOT donate."

So, while I was addressing the point that society does have the right to
supercede the rights of a minority and discriminate against them (Smokers),
here is an example where certain lifestyles (again, it's not just gays)
have been proven to be dangerous to the public health and so may be
discriminated against.  And to lie on the screening questionairres and/or
donate is a criminal offence, I believe a felony here in AZ.

Now, so what?  Blood donation is a very specific case.  Can an employer ask
if you are gay and deny you employment because donate blood either?
Insurance risk to the company?  I don't think so, and should not be able
to.  Being gay or not has little to do most jobs, and federal law is already 
fairly specific about what employers can and can't ask.  However, in the
Health Care and specifically in positions where contact with bodily fluids
is probable, simply being gay is a strong likelyhood for discrimination.
The biggest reason being the latentcy between contraction and detection of
HIV.  During this latentcy (~6 months), transmittal to others is possible.

BTW, some companies have fired workers who smoked ON THEIR OWN TIME.  That
is at home.  Why, because they viewed such employees as a health risk and
felt they had the right to tell those employees what they could or could not 
do outside of work hours.  In the report I saw, some of the workers had won job
descrimination lawsuits.  Others were pending.  The suits, I think used
Fedearal statutes.  In fact, I believe it was Colorado that passed a law 
saying you couldn't fire someone because they smoked on their own time.  
(talk about your ironies).


>Stan Knight
>|Still waiting for that secular reason|

Ahhh, now is that better?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality