From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Boycott Colorado (was Re: Membership Renewal ??)
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:20:02 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article 7400@cbnewse.cb.att.com, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>
>This is the basic problem.  Discrimination is said to be illegal, and at the
>same time, Affirmative Action itself must, by its very nature, discriminate.

Here we go again.  Discrimination is an action done to an individual.  Affirmative
Action is a program designed to enable a class (or more than one class) to obtain
equal opportunity.   I don't see AA as discrimination.

[Much stuff deleted protesting Affirmative Action]

>There are those that say that an individual's value should be based
>upon what they can do, and not what race or religion or sexual preference
>they are.  But clearly, there are laws that claim otherwise.

What laws?

>The ammendment referred to in the original post denying the right to
>claim discrimination against homosexuals might be a reaction to the
>difficulty I spoke of above, difficulty in determining if homosexuality
>itself was the reason for the cited discrimination.  But although that
>may be claimed, it is also the case in all other instances of perceived
>discrimination. 

You seem to have misunderstood.  Amendment 2 in Colorado eliminated the 
opportunity for anyone to prove that there was discrimination based on 
sexual preference.  The issue of proof was not in question.  In every 
discriminaton case, there must be adequate demonstration of evidence, 
for civil proceedings, by a preponderance of evidence, or in the case of 
criminal proceedings, beyond a reasonable doubt.  Amendment 2 makes it legal
to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference in Colorado, regardless
of proof or lack of proof.

>In this case of the boycott, specifically, the statement that THE
>PEOPLE were responsible for the vote, it seems as though the poster
>was referring to a monolithic group of everyone, or at least the
>majority, in Colorado.  And THEY should suffer.  To make the voices
>heard.  And those that were not "guilty" -- well, tough shit.  After
>all, they're in the minority.  And if a business goes under that had
>nothing to do with the ammendment, hey, somebody's always got to 
>suffer a bit to stop suffering, right?

1)  There is no effective way to select between those who supported Amendment
    2 and those who did not.
2)  There is no implication of 'guilt' or 'innocence' implied in a boycott.
3)  It is very effective to apply economic pressure which in turn will be
    applied to the legislature.
4)  It is difficult to attribute a business failure to one specific cause.

Your argument can be applied to any and every situation as a reason for not
doing anything.  I expect that you only apply it in the areas where you 
disagree with the issue, and not in those areas where you agree.  Seems like
a week argument in that case.

>Who has that simple, common-sense, Absolute Answer to the Boycott
>issue? 

Well, your "answer" is to ignore Colorado and Amendment 2.  You seem the only
one looking for an Absolute Answer.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141