From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Homophobic Majority?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:18:02 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <97049@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <-6_p!yk.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>In article <96963@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
    >>writes:
    >>
    >>>Not really. Employers should be able to control behavior on
    >>>their property and their property only. ... You know that's
    >>>not what I meant. I meant that if I am you boss I have no say
    >>>in what you can do with your girlfriend to qualify for
    >>>employment, or that what you do with your girlfriend has
    >>>bearing on my business.
    >>>
    >>>otherwise, I would be invading your privacy.
    >>>
    >>Actually, if you were taken in a literal fashion, YOU would
    >>be invading MY privacy and interfering with MY Freedom Of
    >>Association.
    >>
    >Right. Which is why I say that any interference with one's
    >private affairs away from work is initiation of coercion.

You last statement by itself is correct. However, you seem to equate
Acme Inc. decision to fire you because it observes you doing activity
X as interference. It is not.

As long as (and about all companies do) Acme Inc. states that it and
you have the right to terminate employment at any time for any reason,
then it violates no contract with you.

Remember, FOA is a TWO-WAY street. If Acme In.c doesn't want to
associate with you, then for you to attempt to maintain that association
is immoral.




    >>I can agree, or disagree, to accept employment on any moral
    >>basis whatsoever (moral means I'm adult and the property
    >>involved is all properly owned etc.).
    >>
    >But can you agree NOT to ask any questions about a
    >prospective or current employee's private life? After all, if
    >you do, you are interfering with THEIR privacy and THEIR
    >Freedom of Association, like you said above.

Sure, if you and Acme Inc. agree (or Acme Inc. advertises as such) that
it won't pry into your like, or doesn't care, etc. then you have a contract.



    >>Of course, most employment opportunities do not care much
    >>about what your girlfriends (or equivalent) do or are --
    >>unless they are in a competitive company and you are in a
    >>very competitive industry.
    >>
    >Competitive? How so?

You work at IBM develop[ing OS/2 2.x and you SO works at Microsoft on
Windows/NT strategy, those two companies WILL be concerned.



    >>The Miss America pageant certainly cared what the one winner
    >>did with her "girlfriend"/fellow model -- they didn't like
    >>what she had done in her spare time (the lesbian theme
    >>photos).
    >>
    >But someone invaded the contestant's privacy by making these
    >photos public. Someone invaded the contestant's freedom of
    >association.

NO!!!!! Ms. Williams had signed a model release form. Without which, NO
magizine would have DARED published those photographs.



    >>Or perhaps I want to work for the NRA-ILA, or a pro-choice
    >>organization, or a tobacco company. They might care one hell
    >>of a lot if my girlfriend worked for HCI or a anti-abortion
    >>group or a ban-smoking lobby.
    >>
    >How are they going to find out without invading your (and
    >her) privacy? without interfering with your freedom of
    >association?

What privacy? You show up in public promoting one of those positions you
ain't private.



    >>So in short, don't YOU interfere with MY freedom to seek work
    >>on any basis whatsoever.
    >>
    >Yes, I do realize we're at a standoff here.

But, I have the "more free" position. I do not assume that I know better
than you what you can agree to in a work situation, yet you apparently
seem to think you can know better than me what I should agree to.

Once you've established that position, then of course someone else
can decide what sexual orientation you can have on the same basis -- they
know better than you what is good for you.


    >>>You know what is problematic about defining EVERYTHING except
    >>>government as private? If you do that, you should be able to
    >>>sunbathe in the nude on your property no matter whether
    >>>someone else can see you and objects.
    >>>
    >>So? Some people want to walk around on PUBLIC streets holding
    >>hands and acting affectionate with members of THE SAME
    >>SEX!!!!! Or they sit on their lawns making out with members
    >>of the same sex!!!!
    >>
    >But the street is publicly owned. I was talking about doing
    >stuff on your own property. Making out on their lawns is a
    >better comparison.

Yep.

    >>>If you do that, businesses should be totally unregulatable.
    >>>No usury laws, no public health laws, no nothing...
    >>>
    >>So? Most states don't have usury laws. And I certainly
    >>haven't much application of public health laws. Note that
    >>most laws like this do about nothing to "help" anybody except
    >>some private interest lobby.
    >>
    >So are you saying usury laws are immoral?

Oh yes, they most certainly are.



    >If we were to abolish mandatory payment of taxes, how many
    >people do you think would pay anyhow?

Somewhere less than 1%. Now you see they point, even if you don'tunderstand it.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5832 ca.politics:8406