From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 15:59:20 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep25.191001.13789@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
    >(me) # The nature of religious employment is such that it is
    >an employment of # conscience and belief. No organization can
    >rationally be expected to # hire people who disagree with the
    >founding principles of said organization.
    >
    >/(cramer) /So what makes a private employer or landlord any
    >different?
    >
    >
    >1. A private employer/landlord is not a religious
    >organization.
    >
    >2. A private employer/landlord is not a non-profit
    >organization.
    >
    >3. Renting to (or hiring) someone whom you personally dislike
    >does not contradict the founding principles of your
    >organization or your apartment complex.
    >
    >I would think this would be fairly clear to anyone, Clayton.


Oh, so then all those nasty old stupid businesses that refused to do
business with South Africa -- they were wrong. I see. And, and why not
sell stuff to Iraq. Just because you and all the officers of the company
dislike ole' Saddam, well, hell, nows not the time to let personal
prejudices get in the way of business, nosirrreeee ...

    >/(cramer) /Employers and landlords have consciences also,
    >
    >Having a conscience and running a business BASED upon
    >conscience are two entirely, worlds-apart, DIFFERENT things.
    >Everyone in the world has a conscience. But Boeing is not an
    >"organization for conscience"; the Red Cross is.

I don't think you understand any of what you are talking about. Clayton
is talking about the possesion of a moral attribute know as conscience, not
the nature of an organization itself.
     
    >/(cramer) /and this principle has been /recognized as
    >allowing a landlord to refuse to rent to a cohabitating
    >/unmarried heterosexual couple here in California.
    >
    >An occasional juridical aberration does not negate the
    >general principle of nondiscrimination.
    >
    >I can show you case law where a judge fined a man for selling
    >his house to newlyweds without telling them that the house
    >was haunted. I wouldn't go basing my real estate law on such
    >cases, though.

You are one hell of a stupid motherfucker, to quote Arnold. It is not an
occasional aberration, and you hanbd waving is extgreme intellectual
dishonesty. Secondly, real estate law has been dramatically affected by
the last case. A whole new set of forms exist that the seller must now
fill out aimed explicitly at that very kind of case. Not only are
you dishonest, but very ignorant as well.

    >(cramer) /Should an employer /have the right to refuse
    >employment to a skinhead who likes to burn /crosses on the
    >weekends? I say he should have that right; you seem /to be
    >saying the employer should be required to hire that skinhead.
    >
    >Yes, I am.
    >
    >As long as the skinhead doesn't do it on company time, on
    >company property, or state that he represents the company
    >while he is doing it. And as long as his weekend activities
    >do not affect his job performance.
    >
    >Being a Nazi or a Revolutionary Worker is a political belief.

Slimeball. Some of us belive a private morality. If you want to rely on the
State to define and control your morality, well, mental sickness is not
illegal nor immoral, so go ahead. Just keep out of our way when we puke ...

    >If he is guilty of trespassing or breaking/entering, or
    >malicious intimidation, then those are all actionable
    >offenses, quite apart and separate from his political
    >beliefs. But just being a member of a group that is unpopular
    >is not sufficient to deny employment

Well, what does that have top do with anything, according to your
warped reasoning? If he/she/it didn't do it on company time blah-blah ...

    >If you will remember, political affiliation is another
    >protected category. But that does not make the Democratic
    >National Committee legally responsible to hire Pat Buchanan.
    >This is the same thing as the synagogue being forced to hire
    >the Muslim minister argument--it is bogus.
    >
    >People should not be denied employment for non-job-related
    >issues, Clayton. Seems pretty clear to me.

Oh yes. The little fascist. YOU, the employer, must hire according to MY
dictates. Fuck your freedom, live YOUR life to MY wishes.

Eeeccch. Don't you know communism is dead boy?

    >(me) # God, such easy questions. # The RKBA is not a basic
    >human right. Food, employment, housing, # and access to govt
    >services are.
    >
    >/(cramer) /The Washington Supreme Court disagrees. See State
    >v. Rupe (Wash. 1984). /Self-defense isn't a basic human
    >right? Tell me all about it.
    >
    >You are wrong. If you would like, I can put you in touch with
    >the legal department here at Microsoft and you can argue your
    >pet legal theories with them. Prepare to lose.

Asshole. RKBA is constituionally defined. The others aren't. Argument by
authority is essentially a mark of a bully.



-- 
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 ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc