From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Saying something once or 100 times does not make it so
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:29:08 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Nov20.195210.13197@pb2esac.uucp>, by jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand):
> In article <13294@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

> Are you saying you see no difference between firing an employee
> who is doing otherwise fine work when the employer finds out he/she
> is gay (which is what we're *really* talking about here)
> and not renting to someone whose three dogs make them unsuitable
> for your thin-walled apartment???

I used my very own criteria in deciding not to rent to this
fellow.  He stated that his dogs were always under control,
and had never damaged anything.  His opinion certainly has
as much validity as mine, but I did not want to assume the
risk, and since it is my property, I made the choice myself
without any 'help' from the government.

Why would a company fire a person who is gay and is doing
good work?  You tell me because I can see no reason other
than stupidity, but these companies don't last anyway.
If that company decides that they no longer want that
employee, shouldn't they have the right to legally terminate
him/her?  The company I work for should have every right to
decide that guys with long hair like mine are out, but if
they did, they would suffer because of losing good people.

>>What if you wanted to rent a room in your house, and William
>>Dannemeyer was the only applicant?  Would you want to
>>be forced to rent to him?  What if he wanted to have
>>sex with you?  Would you discriminate against him?

> And should I presume you see no difference in either of these
> situations either???

Maybe a little extreme (as you point out below), but
would you indeed rent a room to Mr. Dannemeyer?  If
not, how would you feel about the government forcing
you to do so?

> What appears to be going on hear is the "Open The Floodgates"
> arguments.  They go something like this:

[Extremist statements of both left and right deleted for brevity.]

> There are grains of truth in each argument but I refuse to let the
> agenda for discussing these issues be set by ridiculous examples
> and comparisons, like the ones you made up.  Analogies are fine,
> analogies are useful, but not when they distort the issue.

Yes, this is true, but I feel that letting things work
themselves out naturally is better than artificial intervention.

>>Oh Jack, tell me that you left your terminal logged on!

> My terminal was not left on: I believe employers should not evaluate
> employees on anything other than that which would indicate how well
> they can perform their job. Sorry this idea is too radical for you.

No, I am in total agreement with you here.  And those factors
that determine how well an employee can perform their job
should be determined by the employer, and not the government.

>>> It is hard to imagine many things more irrelevant than whether Phil Ronzone
>>> believes Gennifer Flowers.

>>But did you believe Anita Hill?  :-)

> That's irrelevant.  I believed that for George Bush to stand up unashamedly
> and proclaim that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person he could
> find to sit on the Supreme Court was a dangerous statement - many people
> I knew died laughing.

Dangerous?  How about pathetic?  I almost went blind from
rolling my eyeballs.  Of course, the court will swing back
towards center, barring calamity in the next two months.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7305 ca.politics:9771 talk.politics.misc:61183