From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:42:36 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <96963@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >Not really. Employers should be able to control behavior on
    >their property and their property only.
    >...
    >You know that's not what I meant. I meant that if I am you
    >boss I have no say in what you can do with your girlfriend to
    >qualify for employment, or that what you do with your
    >girlfriend has bearing on my business.
    >
    >otherwise, I would be invading your privacy.

Actually, if you were taken in a literal fashion, YOU would be invading
MY privacy and interfering with MY Freedom Of Association.

I can agree, or disagree, to accept employment on any moral basis whatsoever
(moral means I'm adult and the property involved is all properly owned etc.).

Of course, most employment opportunities do not care much about what your
girlfriends (or equivalent) do or are -- unless they are in a competitive
company and you are in a very competitive industry.

The Miss America pageant certainly cared what the one winner did with her
"girlfriend"/fellow model -- they didn't like what she had done in her
spare time (the lesbian theme photos).

Or perhaps I want to work for the NRA-ILA, or a pro-choice organization, or
a tobacco company. They might care one hell of a lot if my girlfriend worked
for HCI or a anti-abortion group or a ban-smoking lobby.

So in short, don't YOU interfere with MY freedom to seek work on any basis
whatsoever.

    >You know what is problematic about defining EVERYTHING except
    >government as private? If you do that, you should be able to
    >sunbathe in the nude on your property no matter whether
    >someone else can see you and objects.

So? Some people want to walk around on PUBLIC streets holding hands and
acting affectionate with members of THE SAME SEX!!!!! Or they sit on their
lawns making out with members of the same sex!!!!


    >If you do that, businesses should be totally unregulatable.
    >No usury laws, no public health laws, no nothing...

So? Most states don't have usury laws. And I certainly haven't much application
of public health laws. Note that most laws like this do about nothing to
"help" anybody except some private interest lobby.



    >>>What about a compromise? The government gives tax incentives
    >>>to those corporations which sign non-discriminatory contracts
    >>>with their employees?
    >>>
    >>This is the crux of creeping fascism.
    >>
    >But it is voluntary and mutually agreed upon. If you don't
    >like the deal, don't sign the contract.

Uh, the taxes are NOT voluntary. You make all taxation totally voluntary
and then I'd agree. With glee. And much gusto.



    >>Tax incentives are nothing more than a variant of a
    >>protection racket.
    >>
    >I guess I had better stop donating to charities.

Suit yourself.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics