From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 05:42:30 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

In article <1jvtk2INNqn4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU
(coram populo) writes:

> In article <1993Jan24.200107.8864@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >A: I'd like to have sex with you.      A: I'd like to rent your room.
> >B: No thanks, you're not what I want.  B: No thanks, you're not what I want.
> >A: Oh well, too bad.                   A: Discrimination!!!!
> >    
> >1. 80% of all "landlords" in California are individuals, not businesses.
> 
> But they enter into business contracts when they rent their properties.
> They install legal business documents, many landlords are 'businesses'
> because they adopt a DBA or if using their own name e.g. Smith & Sons
> But all acts within the process of property rental is business. The
> idea being that a business is somewhat lacking in a human identity.
> We call businesses by their names, whether it is the owner's name
> or a DBA.  So all parties then enter into contracts with each other
> and since it operates within the larger sphere of the community, it
> must make certain concessions, in order to bring about a fairness
> of treatment of a large spectrum of individuals.

What this boils down to is the idea that that freedom of choice within
sexual intercourse should be a protected right, while within economic
intercourse it should not. This is the exemplary attitude of the
socialist: protect my rights, but restrict those of that bad group over
there. If the majority passes laws for the regulation of some people's
activities (in this case, economic ones), then they may come knocking
down your door to see what goes on behind it (in Georgia's case, the
anti-sodomy laws).  In other words, if the majority in certain
California cities happen to believe in mild forms of socialism and place
(IMHO, unconstitutional) limits on rent, what's so wrong with a majority
in Georgia who happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin passing
anti-sodomy laws?

> >2. What does being a "business" have to do with it? Does a business (a
> >   coporation, partnership, or a plain DBA) have any less civil rights
> >   that an individual? (Answer, no, of course not).
> >
> 
> Well that is the question, isn't it?  It is unclear and very undefined
> territory.  But to simply counter your no, I would say that this is
> not a case of 'individual' civil rights.  Whether one deals with an
> individual or a group (corportaion), if you decide to do business then
> you enter a contractual agreement.  It is based solely on business.
> As a reverse example- most companies and corporations are not democratic
> in nature.  What ever boss says, goes.  Many times the employee has
> no say.  So when we speak of civil rights for the employer or business,
> what happened to the civil rights of the employee?  In other examples
> a boss may tell an employee that it is inappropriate for them to 
> engage in an activity (we will say it is political) while they are
> at work- but, this is a violation of their civil rights.  What is 
> really being said is, while I pay you, I own your time, and therefore
> I own you and your productivity. So what is to be said for civil
> rights when one is at their job?

What's to be said for them is that they're irrelevant in your
hypothetical example. Why should an employer pay for an employee who
doesn't measure up?  That's what you would force on them by the silly
claim that by demanding an employee WORK at work (imagine that!), an
employer is curtailing that person's civil rights.  This is no more
onerous a requirement than, say, an employer prohibiting smoking within
the workplace. Certainly, the employee can exercise his political voice
outside the workplace.  So, the employer has taken nothing away from
the employee.

> Your example has a missing component- one is contractual (legally
> binding) and the other is not.  To decide to have sex with someone, in
> general, is a private and noncontractual arrangement.  To rent a
> property from someone is a legal and a contractual arrangement. 

Which makes no difference; both were entered into freely.

> So in the sphere of business, where there is no democracy, but
> only legally binding contractual agreements, discrimating based
> on color, creed, religion or whatever does not make much sense.

That's true.  It's also true that landlords doing so lose business by
turning down well-qualified people who happen to be in groups they
dislike.  That's their problem.

>    >The act of renting them makes you a business. If you were to
>    >rent to some, but not others, based on race, color, creed,
>    >sex, marital status, or sexual orientation, that would be
>    >discrimination.
>
>Why yes, you are correct in one thing -- it WOULD be discrmination. What
>being a business has to do with it is irrelevant.

> You are right about one aspect of a business being just its people,
> they are greedy and will take as much as they can.
Talk about discrimination and prejudice!  As if everyone in business
were like that.  Imagine what you might say if someone made sweeping
statements like, "All gays are promiscuous, and therefore we should pass
anti-sodomy laws to stop the spread of AIDS."  I rather doubt you'd
appreciate THAT very much.  But then, the point seems to be that you
want to use the power of the state to go after people that are not you
or in a group you belong to.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8374 ca.politics:10720 talk.politics.misc:70335