From: drew@ladymacb.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Boycott Colorado
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:10:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.223427.22341@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Nov07.072232.163305@zeus.calpoly.edu>, cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish) writes:
>> I wasn't going to say anything, but then Stephen said it for me. I have
>> to agree. There's a LOT of bad things going on, but how am I to know
>> that the operator of mountain X voted for or against the measure? Why
>> should other people's ignorance deprive me of the same thing that Stephen
>> looks forward to as well; like him, skiing is one of the few things that
>> makes winter bearable. (that and fireplaces :-))
>
>  We wouldn't want to trouble you with the outside world while you
>are burying your head in the sand-er-snow. 
> 
>> Seriously, work on the CAUSE of the problem (ignorance) with the same
>> zeal as the calls for boycotts. Hell, if we boycotted everything for
>> which there was something that offended us, everyone would be boycotting
>> everything! Pick your irks, and boycott their supporters: EVERYONE goes
>> out of business.
>
>  Um, except how do you make these folks want to be educated? Clearly
>they do not want to be. Boycotts are probably the single most effective
>way to make people think about how deep their convictions are: deep
>enough to put your wallet where your mouth is?

For the people whose votes passed the amendment, it's a religious 
issue.  Afecting the income of towns that they have no stake won't 
compete with "The Word of God."

>  Sorry folks, Colorado has enacted something very hateful. The ski
>industry is certainly Colorado's most visible industry and probably
>one of the largest revenuewise. It makes sense to let Colorado, all
>of Colorado, know that they cannot be completely free of the 
>responsibilities of their actions and the rest of the world will 
>just look the other way. 

Much of Colorado is not as backwards as the conservative, religious,
eastern (and flat) communities that backed Ammendment 2.  The amendment lacked 
support in the more liberal, (and mountanous) communities like Boulder and 
Aspen that have had gay rights laws for years.  Three hundred protestors
showed up at one of the Democrat victory parties. Boulder's mayor has announced 
intentions of naming the city of Boulder as a plantif in a suit against the 
state of Colorado to have the law declared unconsitutional.  

>  But you say that only the innocents will be hurt? I find it
>difficult to be too sorrowful when a class of people have just
>been told they are persona non grata. What about them? This
>seems to me to be a classic case of blaming the victim.

Amendment Two pased 54% - 46%.  So you're going to punish the 46% 
of the state that supported gay rights, towns like Aspen that had 
local ordinances protecting gay rights, and other communities that 
are already taking legal action against the state?

Isn't this an generalization, a prejudice, the same thing you're 
trying to fight?

>  What if Colorado had just passed an amendment which repealed
>anti discrimination legislation against say race, but not 
>religion. Could you in good conscience spend your recreation
>money there? 
>  The situation is directly analogous.

All of Colorado isn't backwards.  

>

And what about other states that haven't managed to pass 
similar legislation, but have had enough support in certain
areas to get it on the ballot?  Ie Oregon?

Maybe we could pass a law legalizing discrimination against 
hateful right wing reactionaries... 

-- 
Microsoft is responsible for propogating the evils it calls DOS and Windows, 
IBM for AIX (appropriately called Aches by those having to administer it), but 
marketing's sins don't come close to those of legal departments.
Boycott AT&T for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit.
Xref: sparky rec.skiing:7214 soc.culture.french:8282