From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:04:28 GMT

Note followup-to: This thread doesn't have much to do with sex
or limbaugh anymore (did it ever?). talk.politics.misc and
alt.society.civil-liberty added...

In article <1993Jan7.180031.1346@adobe.com> mfox@adobe.com writes:
>>I've taken my stimulants for the day, thank you. Show me how
>>white, straight males have more than equal protection _before the
>>law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
>>people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
>>advantages. 
>
>(Most straight people do not appear to be aware that there are sodomy laws
>in place in about 50% of states in the U.S. Straight people in these
>states have the legal advantage of being able to kiss their SO's without
>committing a felony.)

I am aware of sodomy laws. I am not aware, nor am I convinced
that a homosexual couple kissing constitutes sodomy. In any
case, the appropriate remedy is to eliminate the sodomy laws,
not to pass more laws that do not even directly deal with the
problem.

>Stating that two people have equal rights is moot if one of those people
>is not able to claim those rights. Anti-discrimination laws exist to 
>allow people to enforce their rights, i.e. to ensure that the rights
>people can exercise *in principle* can be exercised *in practice*.

I do not think the right to not be discriminated against is a
right that anyone should be able to claim, i.e. I don't support
the rights being discussed in principle or in practice.

>Don't you find it odd that Amendment 2 targets a specific subset of
>the population?

No, I don't find it odd considering that it what
obviously written by Xian bigots.

>Anyway, you make a good point by separating out the violation of a person's
>rights from the reason for that violation. If someone is fired from their
>job for being bisexual you seem to imply that they can still claim that
>they were unfairly dismissed without reference to the fact that they are
>bisexual. This would make the claimant's case exceedingly difficult. If
>your boss were to walk in the room and say "You're fired because you are
>gay" you would be able to claim an unfair dismissal but would not be able
>to state the alleged reason for that dismissal. I'm not sure how such
>cases are actually tried but I find it difficult to imagine that it is
>easy to prosecute a charge of unfair treatment without providing a
>basis for that claim.

My point was that a homosexual can still claim discrimination
if she was discriminated against for some other reason, such as
age, gender, etc. The reason I made this point is that someone
implied that CO #2 prevents someone who is a homosexual from
making any sort of discrimination claim.

>But that is neither here nor there. The real problem with Amendment 2
>is that if your boss were to walk into the room and say "You're fired
>because you are straight" you *would* be able to claim unfair dismissal
>*based on sexuality*. Gay/Bi/Lesbian people cannot do this under 
>Amendment 2; this amendment is discriminating against them.

I agree that this is a problem and suggested that an
amendment that disallowed antidiscrimination laws based
on sexuality rather than only homosexuality would be
better. 

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality