From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:57:45 GMT

: Just because some people do not think that being Gay is the same 
: thing as being black?
: I know some people who think that being Gay is a psychological disorder, in
: some cases. They do not believe that Gay should be given minority status.
: ...
: For some people it would not be the same. For some people being Gay is not
: an inborn thing but a disorder.

Some people think that black people are another species.  There is no proof
that being gay is any more a choice than being black.  And if your argument
hinges on this, why not have the amendment say "no special protection for
people with psychological disorders"?  That way when proof comes in one way or
the other, we'd know how to apply it.  The amendment, as it stands, doesn't
single out homosexuals because they suffer a psychological disorder; it singles
them out because they're homosexual.

BTW, in your example, one could probably legally fire the employee because he
was clearly hurting business, even if we substitute "black" for "gay".

As for the issue of choice, let's look at, say, marital status, which is
certainly a choice (prearranged nuptials and shotgun weddings excepted).
Substitute "single person" in your example.  The law clearly disallows you
from firing them solely because they are single.  Why should this form of
discrimination be prohibited, while discrimination against homosexuals is
constitutionally protected?

: >In the general case, I don't think you can reasonably claim that hiring a
: >homosexual has any adverse effects for you, other than "violating your
: >priniciples", which has been proven in court to be worth squat ("but judge, my
: >principles don't let me associate with black people...")
: 
: Not really. I used to work as a technician fixing very expensive medical
: equipment. One important point was that your image should be well accepted 
: by the client because sales were based, in a lot of cases, on references from
: previous clients. 
: If some of our clients would have had a problem with Gays, the company
: would certainly have not send a Gay person to do the job at that particular
: place.

Right, as I alluded to above in mentioning you might be able to fire the black
guy for hurting business.  But you'd have to prove that was the issue.  You're
not firing because he is black/gay, you're firing because he hurts business.

BTW, this is also very unlikely, and in fact the converse is more likely.  For
instance, HP recently adopted a policy of non-discrimination against
homosexuals, mainly because certain of our bigger customers would not do
business with anyone who condoned discrimination.

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.