From: jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:09:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Oracle Europe

In article <archer.145@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> In article <nkjfh10@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >I know many gay men who have been fired for being gay (I was one, my lover
|> >was nearly another).  I know people who have been denied promotion for being
|> >female, I know people who have been denied promotion for being black.
|> 
|> So we can see clearly by your example that anti-discrimanatory laws were not 
|> helpful in your case.
|> 
|> >I can cite cases of almost every minority being biased against for who they
|> >are, not what they do.
|> 
|> That is true, but governemnt intervention is useless and wrong.  
|> 
|> >Do you believe that women would not be sexually harassed in the military
|> >if the government did not say "stop it"?
|> 
|> This military is a US government operation paid for by tax dollars collected 
|> form all individuals.  The Libertarian platform is clearly opposed to the 
|> government, as a public entity from engaging in discriminatory practices of 
|> any type.  This example is invalid, except to prove my point.  Activity such 
|> as that which occured at the "Tailhook" convention is already illegal by act 
|> of Congress AND Naval regulations.  It did not stop it.  Only by changing 
|> the society can such things be prevented.
|> 
|> >I am a minority.  There are not enough gay owned businesses in the united
|> >states that I can take my business to them.  I have been thrown out of bars
|> >in Detroit where the owner has said "we don't serve faggots here."  Not
|> >worth pressing charges, but you bet your ass that if people thought they
|> >could get away with it, they would.
|> 
|> But he DID get away with it.  In SPITE of the law, which meant NOTHING.
|> 
|> -=-=-
|> T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
|> University of Tennessee
|> "Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
|> -=-=-

I need some clarification of T. Archer's position and of the Libertarian
position on anti-discrimination laws.

Aren't such laws society's way of saying that this type of behavior
is something up with which it will not put? The so-called
representatives of society decide that, to the best of their 
knowledge, most members of the society do not condone this
behavior and therefore provide sanctions to discourage it?

Of course, discrimination exists, otherwise their would be no `
need for sanctions. Without sanctions the discrimination will
continue. How else is the society to be kept within a resonable
range of behavors. Leave it to mom and dad to teach the kids
that bigotry is wrong and you will go to hell if you practice
it--or, you'll pay an earthly price if you practice it. One which
society sees fit for you to pay.

How do T. Archer and the librtarians propose that society discourage
behavior that it sees as wrong and/or hurtful to the minority members?

Jason Durbin
Technology Division
Oracle Europe
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13364 soc.motss:32335 talk.politics.misc:35626 alt.individualism:4499