HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fhage@virga.rap.ucar.edu (Frank Hage)
Subject: Amendment #2 & Health Care
Reply-To: fhage@virga.rap.ucar.edu (Frank Hage)
Organization: Research Applications Program/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:00:16 GMT

Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:

NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Neither the State of Colordado, through any of its branches or departments,
nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, 
ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation,
conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of 
discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all respects
self-executing.

--------------------------------------------------

Does this mean that Health care facilities (especially publicly supported ones
like Denver General) can refuse service to individuals by claiming that 
they have a homosexual orientation? Does this give hospitials an "out" for
providing indigent care?

Imagine this not so far fetched scenario;

Employer: "Our health insurer says you've been treated for an HIV
related illness, and are going to raise our rates - Unless you can
prove your not homosexual, you're fired!"

Ex Employee: "Now I'll never get health insurance - 'preexisting conditions'"

Later Ex-Employee gets a serious infection or injury and goes to a hospital.

Emergency Room Staff: "I'm sorry. You've tested positive for HIV.  You have no
insurance. The hospital's policy is to cut costs wherever legally possible.
Unless you can prove you're not homosexual or can post a $250,000 cash bond,
you'll have to leave."

--------------------------------------------------

As I read the amendment, the ex-employee has no legal recourse.  The
state can't even withold Medicaid support to "offending hospitals" based on
their policy of discriminating against homosexuals.
Most, if not all, hospitals currently "dump" indigent patients whenever
possible, as they are quite expensive to care for. It is only the power of law
that currently forces hospitals to care for indigent patients. Won't #2
allow them to legally discriminate against anyone who they think might
have a  homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or
relationship? It seems as if any patient could be refused on this
basis, as slander or libel cannot possibly arise from private, confidential
medical records. All it would take is for a staff member to add "homosexual
orientation" to their records. (After all they were facing a poster
of Elton John when they came in :-).


-Frank Hage. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Boulder, Colorado.
Newsgroups: co.general,uswest.forsale,misc.forsale,rec.autos,co.ads
From: ltp@uswest.com (Halfman-Halfmachine)
Subject: Ford Pickup for sale...Denver Area
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:50 GMT


	*** 1983 Ford Pickup For Sale ***

	- XLT Series, 2-tone Red and White 
	  Red and Black interior
	- 460 V8 3-Speed Automatic
	- Custom Bed Liner
	- Tow Package
	- Chrome Bumpers
	- Brand New Goodyear Wranglers 
	- A/C, P/S, P/B, Cruise, Tilt
	- AM/FM Cassette Deck
	- Crossbed Toolbox
	- 71,000 miles on a religously 
	  maintained motor.
	- Everything in this truck is
	  Heavy Duty, clean, and in great
	  condition.
	- Pro Net gate included.

	$5,900.00  firm

	Home phone (303) 467-2832 after 7:00 p.m. MST
-- 
Larry T. Paine   ltp@advtech.uswest.com   (303)541-6148
   DoD 789   
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:56:59 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 20698@col.hp.com, vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:
BEGIN EXAGERATION
>  For those outside the state who don't know what the campaign really
>  looked like (don't expect NBC Nightly News to give you an accurate
>  picture) it was basically comprised of the media, EPOC and various
>  homosexual activist groups/sympathizers running around calling
>  CFV/Will Perkins/anyone remotely associated with any other thought
>  pattern besides "if it's in the Gazette, it's so" a hate-mongering
>  nazi.
END EXAGERATION
>  Will Perkins received an average of 2 to 3 hate/death threat
>  faxes and calls a day since about July (I'm not exaggerating).  I
>  know Will personally and he is one of the most gentle and generous
>  men in Colo.  Spgs.  He has had homosexual employees who enjoyed
>  working for him.  Most have moved on/up to better positions.  Not
>  one was fired.  Will knew their sexual preference.  Of course we
				          ^^^^^^^^^^ Will's legislation says its
an ORIENTATION!
>  wouldn't expect that to matter would we ;-(.

OF COURSE THEY WEREND FIRED.  He couldn't legally fire them UNTIL NOW, could he?

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Moderator Volunteer? (was Re: Crossposting -- please limit.)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:25:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.235420.922@stortek.com> pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
>Too many articles are crossposted to this group.  For example, I believe
>nothing should be crossposted to co.general and co.ads.  I understand
>the advertiser's desire to spread his message as widely as possible,
>but if someone reads co.general and not co.ads, it's probably because
>he doesn't _want_ to read ads.  Please respect his wishes.
>
>I see no reason to crosspost among this group and any of the following:
>
>	co.politics
>	co.ads
>	co.politics
>	boulder.general
>
>
>A quotation (intended to be sarcastic) from
>"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette":
>				------
>	Q: How can I choose what groups to post in?
>
>	A: Pick as many as you can, so that you get the widest audience.
>	after all, the net exists to give you an audience.  Ignore those who
>	suggest you should only use groups where you think the article is
>	highly appropriate.  Pick all groups where anybody might even be
>	slightly interested.


Does this mean Paul is willing to take on writing up a charter and moderating?
Or is this just temporary moderating?



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: perrier@teal.csn.org (Perry A. Branch)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:14:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.235357.29636@col.hp.com> kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman) writes:
  [text deleted]
>Before #2 was passed there were no laws in Colorado Springs or the State of
>Colorado protecting homosexuals.  Any claims of discrimination would have to
>be filed in federal court.  That remains true in all of Colorado except Aspen,
>Boulder and Denver where there was (actually still is until January) specific
>municipal protection for homosexuals.  [etc...]


The laws in Denver, Boulder and Aspen will still exist in January.  The big
difference will be that homosexuals, lesbians and bi-sexuals will be
excluded from coverage of these laws because of Ammendment 2.  These laws
prohibit discrimination based on SEXUAL ORIENTATION and don't single out a
particular group. (unlike Ammendment 2)  Hetrosexuals will still be protected
by these laws.  In fact, by passing 2, Boulder, Denver and Aspen will give
hetrosexuals the dreaded "Protected Status" I guess that means hetros must
be lobbying for quotas and minority status.  Maybe I should start a petition.

The antidiscrimination laws in the previously mentioned cities are NOT
gay-rights laws.  They don't give homosexuals protected status
ABOVE hetrosexuals.  These repeated fallacies are (in my opinion) a major
reason many people voted for 2.  I've seen these false and misleading comments
made by some of the folks that obviously opposed 2.  The media (you remember,
the ones that "fought against 2") talked about the gay-rights laws in Boulder,
Aspen and Denver all the time, clouding the truth and feeding exactly the
emotional fear and anger that 2 needed to pass.


>Dan Kary


Perry A. Branch

-- 
 ___  ___  ___   ___  _  _                    Perry A. Branch
(  o)(  _)(  o) (  o)( \/ ) Software Craftsperson II         perrier@pvi.com
 ) /  ) _) )  \  )  \ \  /  Precision Visuals, Inc.      (303) 530-2323 x283
(_/  (___)(_)\_)(_)\_)(_/   6230 Lookout Road            Boulder, CO   80301
Newsgroups: co.general,boulder.general,co.politics
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Boulder "tolerant" and "healthy"? (was Re: Put on your hip-ocrisy...)
Followup-To: boulder.general 
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:22:21 GMT

  [followups to boulder.general]

dd> Dick Dunn

dd> Boulder's economy is the strongest in the state;

  Too strong for the Council, apparently. Boulder is getting too rich, too
  white, and too well-educated. Actually, it's always been that way, which
  is what really cracks me up. If you want a white-bread town, come to Boul-
  der! The only place rich enough to afford "good" liberal ideas!

dd> I would say it's time for Boulder (and the other more liberal towns) to
    start trying to export some of their beliefs, to show more people that
    "live and let live" not only works, but thrives.  

  So long as you're white, educated, and have a good job. As Boulder contin-
  ues to limit growth, it will continue to become a place where only the
  rich and educated (and, white, as it follows) can live. House prices are
  among the highest in the state, rents are high and getting higher (I can
  barely afford living here now), the vacancy rate for apartments is under
  2%, and there's a strict 2% per year limit on new residential construction, 
  the infamous Danish Plan. That may be fine with those who want to keep 
  things good-n-happy for themselves, forget anyone else who wants a piece
  of the dream, but I've always thought that an attitude of "I've got mine,
  forget you sucka" was anathema to good Boulder liberals.

  Soon enough, property taxes will have to increase so much to pay for all
  the services the remaining Boulderites want, that it could become a prov-
  ince of the very wealthy, a la Cherry Hills, Bel Air, &c. A little bit of
  California right on the Front Range! How special.

  One last bash -- Boulder is tolerant only of you agree with liberals. Other-
  wise, you're not welcome here.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.general
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Rocky Mtn Comp. & Tech. Forum - Noon Fri. 11/20/92
Summary: Forum to discuss S893 making software piracy a felony
Keywords: Software Piracy Felony
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:01:33 GMT

Friday, November 20, 1992, the Rocky Mountain Computer and
Technology Forum will be discussing software piracy, especially
in view of recent revisions to 18 U.S.C. Section 2319 making it 
a felony to copy 10 or more works, or works with a value of 
$2,500 within a 6 month period. 

****************************************************************
******THE FORUM IS A BROWN BAG LUNCH ****************************
******IT RUNS FROM NOON TO 2:00 PM (you can leave earlier)*******
*****************************************************************

The bill making copyright infringement a felony was championed by 
the Software Publishers Association (SPA). It was also supported
by Nintendo. The IEEE testified against the bill.

Included on the panel is Bruce E. Hayden, Esq. an intellectual
property attorney whose practice emphasizes computer law issues.
There should be at least one more attorney on the panel, hopefully
a prosecutor, present or former, to speak of the technical  
requirements of the felony, especially as to the intent required.

The monthly (during the school year) Rocky Mountain Computer and
Technology Forums are lively discussions of current events, especially
at the intersection of computers, software, and the law. There are
invariably outspoken partisans on opposite sides of each issue, 
adding to the debate. 

Attorneys can obtain up to 2 Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits
for attending. However, one need not be an attorney to attend. Indeed,
in the last year, many of the forums have had more non-attorneys present.
You are encouraged to bring a brown bag lunch and participate in the debate.

The forum is being held in the Barrett Room, Second Floor, Porter
Administration Building, University of Denver College of Law, 
7039 East 18th Avenue, Denver. This is the building just south of 
the Lowell Thomas Law Center located at 19th and Olive. 
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:11:19 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

>In article <1992Nov16.195330.10398@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
>>   I read an article the other day in the Boulder Daily Camera that explained
>>how the NATIONAL family values people are moving (or have moved) their base
>>of operations to Colorado Springs, CO. What a coincidence that the sponsors
>>of amendment 2 are based in C Springs as well!
>>   So all those who are advocating a total boycott on Colorado, especially
>>having seen that Boulder, Denver, and just about every other major population
>>center voted it down, should consider that its people from OTHER parts of
>>the country that got the darn thing passed here, not the locals.
>>
I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!
Somehow, more than half the population voted in favor of the ammendment.  Where are
these people??  Last I checked, Colorado Springs has much less than half of the
states population!!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin)
Subject: Crossposting -- please limit.
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:54:20 GMT

Too many articles are crossposted to this group.  For example, I believe
nothing should be crossposted to co.general and co.ads.  I understand
the advertiser's desire to spread his message as widely as possible,
but if someone reads co.general and not co.ads, it's probably because
he doesn't _want_ to read ads.  Please respect his wishes.

I see no reason to crosspost among this group and any of the following:

	co.politics
	co.ads
	co.politics
	boulder.general


A quotation (intended to be sarcastic) from
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette":
				------
	Q: How can I choose what groups to post in?

	A: Pick as many as you can, so that you get the widest audience.
	after all, the net exists to give you an audience.  Ignore those who
	suggest you should only use groups where you think the article is
	highly appropriate.  Pick all groups where anybody might even be
	slightly interested.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:39:56 GMT

Al Anderson (aja@col.hp.com) wrote:
: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
: 
: First some Facts.
: # 1.   3-4% is a more correct nunber  (Political Guesstimates are always 
:                                        inflated by 2x or more)

Whatever.  No one really knows.

: # 2. Nobody LOST anything except: The Future Possibility of "Extra Rights for
:      gays".

Try "the future possibility of ANY civil rights protection for gays", as well
"current protections in Boulder, Denver, and Aspen".

: With so many other things on the "Political Plate" (hundreds of things), why is
: this issue being treated as a "High Priority" by the media anyway ???  If you 
: want to boycott something, boycott the media that doesn't share your opinions.

Because the civil rights of thousands of Coloradoans are important?  Because,
although issues 1 and 6 are also important, they are almost certainly moot now,
while there is reasonable hope to a change on the status of 2?

--
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.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boyc
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:52:12 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 15422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman) writes:
>
>>Realize, Melinda, that "minority" groups including African-Americans and
>>American-Indians have been fighting for "their" rights (I quote their, because
>>I feel that PEOPLE deserve rights, not any group of people in particular) for
>>MANY years while the homosexual situation is fairly recent and has been
>>clouded by this AIDS mis-information.  If you wish for us to look at the
>>civil-rights history, one could argue that homosexuals shouldn't expect
>>anything for 30 or so years.
>
>This sounds like "you have to wait X years before we deign to give you
>equal rights".  Freedom and fairness are more important than popular
>myths and "jokes" against certain groups.
>
No, what I'm saying is that change takes a LONG time--Especially change in peoples
views (and religous beliefs).  Some people view this as a Biblical issue and it
is these people especially with whome it is difficult to carry on intellectual
discussions as their ENTIRE support material comes from ONE book.  If you tried
to make a case in academia (or court) with support material only from ONE book
(especially one written so long ago) you'd be laughed out of your position.
> 
> "I am preoccupied with sending signals that I'm straight (chasing skirts,
> making anti-gay remarks, acting macho).  Isn't it just as valid if a gay
> guy constantly sends signals that he's gay?  
>
I don't particularly appreciate having gay men acting towards me the way you describe
and I don't imagine many women appreciate it from straight guys.  However, what
you are suggesting is a 2 wrongs don't make a right situation.  If one person
is an a$$hole, it doesn't make it right for another person to be one.!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Xref: sparky co.general:1834 co.politics:2164
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:34:38 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov17.164158.22880@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>In article <Nov16.221119.53899@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov16.195330.10398@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
>
>>I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!
>>Somehow, more than half the population voted in favor of the ammendment.  Where are
>>these people??  Last I checked, Colorado Springs has much less than half of the
>>states population!!

It's even less if you weight it by IQ.

>El Paso County (which is mostly Colorado Springs) voted about 2/3 in favor of
>amendment 2, 1/3 against.   There were about 50,000 more yes votes than no
>votes in the county.  However, the amendment passed by about 100,000 votes
>statewide, so you can't blame it all on Colo Spgs.
>
>Besides, it was all those northern-Colorado-Springs residents that did it,
>not me...I live in the south end of town :-)

Me too!

>If you want to boycott anybody, consider boycotting Perkins Chrysler-Plymouth
>and Colorado football.  The heads of both operations were prominent in the
>pro-amendment-2 movement.  What would happen if a large chunk of the
>CU student body stayed away from the next home game?  Or refused to buy
>tickets for next season?

Probably not much...most of the proceeds don't come from students anyway.
However, urging the TV networks to boycott CU football might have some impact.

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general
From: pack@acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Local vs Federal laws, was: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Summary: I feel strongly both ways
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research - Atmospheric Chemistry Div
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:28:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.182604.12898@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
 fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.200959.23319@col.hp.com>
> kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>...
>>I've always thought that local civil rights ordinances are a bad idea because
>
>I'd have to disagree completely.
>...
>The residents of Colorado Springs don't want anti-discrimination laws
>based on sexual preference, and the residents of Boulder do. Local 
>laws seem to me the best solution: Niether is subject to outside laws,
>that the local people object to.

The idea of local values has been the center of pornography laws for some
years and, I suppose, makes some sense.  What is common activity on
Hollywood Blvd doesn't seem appropriate in other communities.

At another extreme, just a few short years ago it was not uncommon to
see blacks lynched in some parts of this country.  The outrageous lack
of basic justice on a local level is what makes federal civil rights
laws a necessity.

Amendment #2 is somewhere in the middle ground, but
here we are talking about broad discrimination based upon a state
of mind (sexual orientation), not even a behaviour.  I think there is
national consensus that such discrimination based on such arbitrary and
general criteria is unconstitutional.  We shall see as the
legal battle unfolds

-- 
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: co.general