From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:00:23 GMT

In article <cryn61d.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.151153.19036@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>>In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>    >>Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire
>    >>joe straight, but not john homo because he may file suit)
>    >>that other people don't have, yes, it does confer de facto
>    >>special rights.
>    >>
>    >>
>    >Oh yes, the same special rights that women, people of color,
>    >handicapped people, religious people, and the like have. Gosh
>    >*HOW AWFUL* that we might not want to be capriciously fired
>    >by some loony toon like you.
>    >
>    >Why I feel positively special just thinking about this *HUGE*
>    >right, NOT!
>    >
>    >Phil, are you sure you don't work at Optilink?
>
>Why of course no one wants to get fired, "capriciously" or not. But that
>wasn't the point cinder-block for brains.
>
>The issue is the conferring of special de facto status on yet another
>special interest group, and, as usual, at the cost of rights for all.
>
>Interesting -- I'm trying to work through the principles of the thing,
>and all you can do is emotionally rant and rave.
>
>Well, intellectually of course you do have an indefensible position, so
>it's understandable ...
>
>
>
>-- 
>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 ...)
Interestingly enough....I agree with Phil here. I think what
he is saying is:

	Lawmaker A says...let's grant special
priviledges...protection rights to Social Group A

	Lawmaker B says well if that's the case then
Social Group B needs the same thing.

	Social Group C feels threatened by Social Group A
and lobbies its Reps to counter with anti-legislation

	Social Group A responds with protectionist legislation
against Social Group C

	Social Group B recognizes a power nich and rushes
in to fill it with their interests by sponsoring supportive
legislation for BOTH A and C..playing both sides of the fence.

	The legal profession has to get into it to make
a buck...Feel downtrodden? we have laws here! Laws against
discrimination...you have a case ... so let's sue!

                     ++++++++++++++++

And thus we have a vicous (sp?) circle here. The gay community
rightly feels threatened by the straight community...the
straights...minority of them....claim to feel threatened by
the gay community...each group lobbies for legislation
supporting their own agendas to their representaives
threatening to not vote for them if they dont bring about the
legislation the individual groups are lobbying for...etc ad
nauseum...until this seperatist philosophy...that was foisted
upon the citizenry of USA unawares..begins to truely rip apart
the social infrastructure allowing the government to do what
ever it wants in the interim.....

But I ask Phil....what can be done to ensure that all
non-heterosexual lifestyle adherents be afforded completely
equal protection under the law? ie...how do you make sure they
dont get fired for being gay???? I havent seen any evidence
ether so please dont harp on me for it...but then again I'm
heterosexual and married so it hasn't been a concern of mine
until I began to read this forum.

Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions not my employer's

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45573 ca.politics:7814