From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:45:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.204731.10925@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>I am writing this because I am unable to understand why people think
>that government must make laws to end discrimination.  First, let me
>state that I have a fundamental belief that government should take as
>small a role as possible.  With that in mind, I don't think that the 
>government should make laws to "protect" select groups of people or
>set aside extra rights to these groups.

I keep hearing about these extra rights, but I've yet to see them.
What extra rights does the state of California give Jews, for example,
by saying that it is illegal to discriminate in hiring, promotions,
and housing on the basis of religion?  

  I think that employers should
>hire the best person for the job.  I DO NOT, however, think that we
>should make a law that says they MUST.  If an employer wants to hire
>someone who is not the best for the job, then they will suffer.  If
>they are willing to face the consequences then they shouldn't have
>to worry about being sued based on their hiring preferences.

And yet State Farm seemed to suffer no financial loss by
discriminating against female insurance agents for years.  How do you
explain that?  Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the South, seems
to have done very well despite firing many lesbigay employees.

  If I 
>don't want to hire a homosexual because I disagree with their lifestyle 
>(be it chosen or genetic) then I should have that right.

Queers have lifestyles but straights have lives.  If I never hear that
bogus term "lifestyle" again, it will be too soon.

  Laws that are
>being made to protect small minority groups are making "some people more
>equal than others". 

Bullshit.  A state law that makes it illegal to fire a lesbigay person
for her/his sexual orientation also protects you as a straight.  As it
stands now, a business such as Cracker Barrel can fire employees
solely on the basis of their being queer.  Believe me, if you ever
walk into a gym to apply for a job and are told sneeringly, "We don't
hire breeders," you'll have my support if you decide to sue that gym.

 I think these laws are being made to solve a problem
>that would eventually work itself out.  These laws may have a quicker
>short-term effect but I think they eventually do more harm than good
>because of resentment in other groups who perceive these laws as reverse-
>discrimination.  GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL.  If it
>tries, it provides disincentives for those who excel beyond the average.
>I would prefer a chance at being the best, than having to live with mediocrity.

Bullshit again.  You didn't happen to see the NBC Primetime episode
where they followed a black man and a white man in St. Louis to see
how they were treated, did you?  The black man was told apartments
were taken while the white man was shown the same empty apartments.
The black man was told jobs were taken while the white man filled out
applications for the same jobs, apparently still open.  Laws that
prevent this kind of discrimination don't solve all the problems, but
they offer some recourse to its victims.  And if you think the
government shouldn't (or can't) make the playing field level, consider
the alternatives.  It's not altruism that makes a society try to
prevent discrimination, it's the fear of what happens when those
discriminated against stop taking it.  How many LA riots do you need
to see before realizing that?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality