X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:24:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: <None>
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >> Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't
> >
> >the person you are replying to probably is talking about another
> >person who posted on the subject, and did offer personal distaste
>
> However, he also suggested that that was the only "legit" reason and
> that none other had been offered.

Wrong.  I suggested that there was no "legit" reason, and that none had
been offered that could stand up to examination.

> >> advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
> >> please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
> >> them.
> >
> >this is a form of restricting, is it not?
>
> No, it isn't.  Restrictions come from third parties.  Choices by
> participants are different.  For example, restrictions require
> enforcement while choices don't.

No, restrictions come from others.  Whether they are second, third or
nth parties is irrelevant.  The relevant question is whether they are
violating the rights of the person restricted and, if so, that violation
is warranted by other important concerns.

> >apparently not getting a job because of sexual orientation or race is
> >equal to not getting a car because you don't have enough money.  The
> >former case is _not_ discrimination in the legal sense or the sense we
> >as a nation are trying to avoid.
>
> Actually, we are trying to avoid "he can't afford that"
> "discrimination", which is why I used that example.  Why is "doesn't
> have enough money" acceptable when "wrong orientation/color" isn't?
> Why is "wrong orientation/color" acceptable from employees/customers,
> but not employers/sellers?

Because both parties to the transaction have rights.  Neither should be
allowed to violate the rights of the other.  The seller has the right to
a fair price.  The buyer has the right to the goods if that price is
met.  Furthermore, the employee or buyer has a limited ability to damage
the employer or seller--there is no dependency relationship, for the
most part.  The employer or seller has a greater ability to damage the
employee (job hunter) or buyer, as Jim Crow should have proven pretty
conclusively.

> >> Does Peter really believe that only "good" interests will be
> >> protected?
> >
> >apparently.  He's not alone in his apparent naiviete since many people
> >support the Civil Rights Act that prevents private discrimination
> >based on race, creed, national origin, and sex.  They don't seem to
> >think that such laws will require them to give away cars to people who
> >can't afford them.
>
> Are we using "popularity" to measure "right" again?
>
> We're going to have to require synagogues to hire Nazis and AAs to
> patronize Nazis, abandon this whole misguided endeavor, or prove that
> we're discriminating against "bad" politics.  Pick one.

Considering the history of the Nazis, it is reasonable for a synagogue
to prefer that employees not be Nazis (or be Jews, which should have
the same result).  A business owned by Jews is another matter.

Andy seems to have some trouble with the concept that other people have
rights, too.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU