From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:22:10 GMT

In article <1insd6INNi5g@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > There is a huge difference in whether
> > a state permits immoral behavior vs a state which *promotes* immoral
> > behavior. 
> 
> *Promotes* immoral behavior?  How?  I must have missed the billboards 
> promoting bashing...oh, you mean they promote it by permitting it? 

  Yes. It certainly sets a climate for it by implication. By saying
that other groups, namely ethnic, religious etc are unacceptable
targets of discrimination and that gays/lesbians/bisexuals are,
not just omitted, but *specifically* *excluded* is tantamount to
saying that they are not worthy of protection. In Colorado it is
now *specifically* written into law that GLB's are a fair target 
for discrimination whereas other groups are not.
  This is tantamount to putting a moral stamp of approval on discrimination
based upon being gay. It cannot be otherwise; the state has hypocritically
retained laws which say, in effect, it is immoral to discriminate
given some characteristics, but perfectly acceptable based upon being
gay. If this isn't promotion, what is?

> I'm not trying to be a smartass to you; but I do not see where there 
> is any 'promotion' of immoral behavior.  And I see no difference in 
> practicality between Colorado and other states with no sexual orientation 
> policies.  People _can_, and indeed _have_, been fired in other states 
> for being gay; Cracker barrel being an example.   

  Omission, commission. It's really that simple. Colorado has made
a moral proclaimation, other states can at least claim that the
matter is undecided (properly so).

> >   Well as someone else pointed out, there is a great difference between
> > a sin of omission and a sin of commission. Colorado has done the latter.
> > Not to say that other states wouldn't have necessarily done the same;
> > the fact remains that Colorado was brazen enough to become the first.
> 
> In practice, a sin of omission has the same result.  Either way, the 
> bad thing happens.  The sin of commission may generate more emotional 
> outrage, and makes a more convenient target, but in practice, the 
> outcome is the same.  

  Oh come on Walter, your rationalizing. To allow a million people
to starve is on the same moral level as putting them in the oven?
Certainly the effect is the same but to take an active role is
clearly *far* more evil. Allowing the status quo to stand by ignoring
it and *actively* enforcing the status quo just are not on the same
moral level. 

> >   One actual difference is that a court in that state could hold
> > the company liable through application of other anti-discimination
> > laws (which I believe is the case here in Ca wrt housing, or so
> > says Gov Wilson). The same case would be throw out in Colorado
> > given Co2.
> 
> You totally lost me there.  A state has no law that covers sexual 
> orientation; a person gets fired for sexual orientation.  So the 
> state is going to find some other law to cover them, since they 
> can't legally use sexual orientation? 

  The difference is between statute law and precedent (common law?) law.
Statutory laws are not the only forms of law. Courts can establish 
precedents which will be taken as part of the law, but statute law can
override that (which of course is ultimately overseen by constitutional
law). In effect, Colorado has barred that sort of approach. I will certainly 
defer to a legal scholar, perhaps if WD Starr or Ted Frank are listening 
they could clear this up, but I'm pretty certain that this is, in essence, 
the case.

-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)