From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:56:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hptrane.fc.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

: That is pure B***S**T.  You obviously are not in a position to do any
: hiring/firing.  If you were, you would know that the ONLY grounds for
: firing a person are work performance or general layoff.

This depends on local law, I believe.  Is there really a national law saying no
one can ever be fired except for those reasons?  In any case, the issue isn't
just firing; it is also refusal to hire, and refusal to rent.  That is what
anti-discrimination laws address.

: The issue is whether to grant special constitutional protection to a group
: of people who have no externally detectable differences from the general
: population.  It's quite different from granting protections to minorities
: whose minority status is obvious from the color of their skin.

Anti-discrimination laws are nothing special.  Can you tell a Christian from
a Moslem from a Jew by looking at him/her?  Can you tell a married person from
a single person?  No?  Then why do we allow laws against discrimination based
on religious belief or marital status?  Why doesn't the amendment apply
equally to all classes with no externally detectable differences?

Even if you can come up with a reasonable set of criteria and say "gays don't
qualify, but Christians and married people do", why not just write those
criteria into the constitution, so they will apply to everyone equally?
Instead, what we have is a constitution that in effect says, "I don't know
anything about any criteria for anti-discrimination laws or other civil rights
protections, but whatever someone thinks they are, or might be in the future,
homosexuals are hereby prevented from qualifying".  Which I believe is
inequitable, to the point of potentially violating the "equal protection"
clause of the 14th amendment to the US constitution.  The lawsuit making this
charge is already under way, although come to think of it, I haven't heard much
since the judge was named and Governor Romer made the symbolic gesture (he
personally opposes the amendment, but is the defendent in the lawsuit) of
asking the suit be rejected.  This was at least a month ago, it seems.

: my apologies to rec.skiing netters.

No apologies here.  I don't care one way or another about the boycott myself,
but if there is to be discussion of a boycott, I think people should know the
facts of the situation.  People not even considering the boycott are free to
skip this discussion.  I've put the words "amendment 2" and "boycott" in the
subject line for easy "kill"-ing.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Xref: sparky co.general:2469 rec.skiing:9400 rec.travel:17584