From: gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: NEWSWEEK POLL: Plurality of Americans support GAY RIGHTS
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:46:54
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<15191@borg.cs.unc.edu> <30@bbx.basis.com> <18ssp4INN8vh@plts.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lugh.think.com
In-reply-to: tal@plts.uucp's message of 12 Sep 1992 09:53:40 -0400

In article <18ssp4INN8vh@plts.uucp> tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

   [ can anyone name 'special rights' ]

   I've pinned people down on "name one 'special right' that homosexuals
   want" and the only issue they have ever been able to come up with was
   the scare tactic that "they want hiring quotas".

   Luckily this was in respect to the NJ Gay Rights Bill (A634) and I was
   able to come back with "but the bill expressly states that this may not
   be interpreted to require quota-based hiring".

   It seems that there are a couple things in the NJ bill that were put in
   their to directly address the 'phobes.  Do the other bills include them?

Yes, at least in Massachusetts.  The law here specifically
states that it can't be used to place children in gay foster
homes.  The religious exemption actually worked to our favor
here since laws increase the freedoms of religion are harder
to repeal (complicated, but true).


   Off the top of my head I can think of:
   1.  Define "sexual or affectional orientation".

as people whose objects of affection are over 16 years of age.


   2.  Explicitly exclude "religious institutions."
   3.  Explicitly exclude families that rent <3 rooms out of their house.
   4.  Explicitly exclude businesses with <5 (?) employees.

These three are often standard for all civil rights
legislation.  At least here the exemptions are uniform for
all protected classes.


   5.  Explicitly state that the law can not be used to require quota-based
       hiring.

I don't think this is unusual either.


   6.  Discrimination can not be proved based on statistics. (You can't
       sue because <10% of the staff is gay and therefore by the law of
       averages you must be discriminating).

This is probably based on recent Supreme Court rulings.


   The only scare-tactic that A634 didn't forstall against was "companies
   will be required to allow transvestites to go to work in DRAG!!!" but
   there is already a law in NJ saying that companies have the right to
   dictate a dress code.  The "common questions that your constituents might
   ask" flyer sent to the congressmen included this information.

   So, does anyone know if the other bills (passed or proposed) have such
   things included?

There were three amendments on the Massachusetts bill (I
think one forbidding quotas, one increasing the religious
exemption, and one concerning gay foster care, but my memory
is weak on this).

The New Jersey Law is probably cleaner.

--gordon


   Tom
   -- 
   Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (home) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
   "Families should be more like the Waltons instead of the Simpsons" -G. Bush;
   "But we *are* like the Waltons: we're waiting for the Depression to end,
   too!" -B. Simpson 8/20;    S7/2 b+ g l+ y z- n++ o++ x++ a-- u+ v+ j+ PIG8/5