From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:25:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.171046.28005@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
    >(phil) /Wow! Shudder! Gasp! What, you mean that maybe Clayton
    >is calling for /freedom SO strong that people might ACTUALLY
    >allowed to do something that /YOU consider STUPID!?
    >
    >Not stupid; illegal. And a violation of civil liberties.

Oh, it's legality now you want eh? So of course, then you agree and support
any state which makes, say, homosexual activities illegal. And of course
you seem to want to violate other peoples civil liberties in order to
get what you (wrongly) consider your "civil liberties".

    >But since you spoke up, I put the same question to you, Phil:
    >
    >IF: you believe that it is perfectly legal to discriminate
    >according to your heart's content in a private situation,
    >
    >AND IF: You are calling non-religious employment & for-profit
    >rentals a private situation,
    >
    >THEN: You must also support an employer who refuses to hire
    >blacks or Jews.
    >
    >AND: You must also support the right of a landowner not to
    >rent to blacks or Jews.
    >
    >Checkmate.

Huh? Please, read the posts. Of course people have the RIGHT to do that.
I do not in general "support" such people, but I do support their
right to do so.

    >SO: Do you or do you not support the right of a landowner /
    >employer to discriminate?

Absolutely do I support it. In fact, I support it in the absolute.
Many people do support the right of employers to discriminate in
certain areas, like competence. I support in total.

    >/(phil) /Next thing you know, people might want to do other
    >stupid things, like /climbing mountains with safety equipment
    >
    >I assume you meant "without". What people do to themselves
    >(even stupid things) is their own business. What they do that
    >affects other people is another matter.

Why yes. Then I glad to see that you agree with me. To force yourself
on an employer via coercive threats is not a positive (or moral) thing
to do. And it definitely affects the employer and the people that have
to work with him/her/it.


    >(phil) /or having homosexual sex with 20 strangers in /one
    >night ...
    >
    >That's not stupid, Phil; you're just bragging, that's all . .

Why, thank you. "Once a philosopher, twice a pervert" - Voltaire.

    >(phil) /It would be funny if it wasn't so sick & frustrating
    >-- all the little closet /fascists that just CAN'T see why
    >people should have the freedom to do /things that they don't
    >approve of.
    >
    >1. Because the legal right to discriminate does not exist
    >
    >2. Because the govt has always, ever since the beginning of
    >this country, reserved to itself the right to regulate trade
    >and commerce and to place restrictions on both for the
    >preservation of the general welfare
    >
    >3. The philosophical basis for your argument is a libertarian
    >belief which has no legal foundation in this country; i.e.,
    >the existence of a right of association

Let me restate your position:

1. Because the government said so and that's good enuf' for me.

2. That's the way we've always done it anyway.

3. If I close my eyes maybe it will all go away.


    >(phil) /When you look at it, there is no /difference between
    >this post and the ramblings of some ultra fundie or
    >/ayatollah ...
    >
    >
    >Hmmm. . . So far you have called me an ayatollah, and a
    >fascist (in another post)
    >
    >>>Oh yes. The little fascist.
    >>>
    >and a couple of other things, also, too juvenile and
    >insignificant to mention here.
    >
    >But you know, the principle I advocate (nondiscrimination)
    >would not have been at all welcome in Nazi Germany; it would
    >have forced them to treat Jews, gypsies, and gays equally.
    >Your attitude would have been very welcome, though.
    >Encouraged, even; as a way to deal with "undesireables".
    >
    >And in Iran where they discriminate against Jews and
    >Christians, my principle of nondiscrimination would also be
    >rejected; anyone who voiced such a view might even be killed.
    >Your attitude, however, would be very popular.
    >
    >Hmm. . . let's see . . .
    >
    >Obviously, fascism and unthinking fanaticism ("ayatollah")
    >apply to *you* more than to me, Phil.

Oh no, not at all. You see, I believe that ANYBODY (adult) can do
ANYTHING they want, as long as it's their lives, their property,
and everybody consents.

The NAZIs, the Ayatollahs, the Fascists, they'd stampede to burn people
like me if they could. They can't abide freedom.

All three started out in some ways like your position. They all did noit
trust people to make their own decisions, to associate freely, to
contract freely ... the NAZIs worried about race, the Ayatollahs
worried about religion, the Fascists worried about who controls
the means of production ... and they all had to make it "better"
with laws.

Me, I say BUTT OUT ASSHOLES!!!

How come you don't?????


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA