From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 17:24:28 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep11.103622.27145@resonex.com> michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
    >In article <_svn4fn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>First, it wasn't the "negro fascist lobby", but rather what
    >>we might call the rich, white, guilt-laden knee-jerk liberal
    >>lobby that got those laws passed.
    >>
    >Oh, so sorry. I forgot that the only the white people were
    >concerned about what happened to the black people. The black
    >people obviously resented any attempt to have their rights
    >protected, and were not the ones pusing for legislation to
    >protect them from discrimination.
    >
    >Sounds like you're the one living in a fantasy world.

Nope. Actually, you seem to live in a media image world.

The reality is that the people that got the "civil rights" laws passed
were the white people described above. That doesn't mean that the negroes
of the time didn't care -- they did, they just had very little political
power.

You are not comprehending much here buddy.

    >>druggies, but you know, it is a bad law. And so are the
    >>"anti-discrimination" laws, which of course, merely codify
    >>racial presence into law.
    >>
    >I agree that there are problems with anti-discrimination
    >laws. It's a damn shame that we have to have laws just so
    >various groups of people have some recourse against unfair
    >discrimination. But as long as bigotry and hatred exist, and
    >result in various classes of people being denied equal
    >rights, the laws *are* needed. Only when we see an end to
    >this foolish bigotry and close-mindedness will I believe
    >otherwise.

You know, bigotry and hatred are not only NOT illegal, they are, for the
most part, protected free speech. So why do you want laws that attempt
to coerce behaviour that people are entitled to?

    >Personally, I'd much rather see laws which said something to
    >the effect of "Job hiring/firing/promoting/etc decisions can
    >only be made based on factors directly related to the ability
    >of the person to do said job. Renting decisions can only be
    >based on factors directly related to the tenants ability to
    >pay the rent and properly maintain the property." The problem
    >with such laws is that they are virtually impossible to
    >enforce, due to the way people could twist the meaning of
    >what was relevant to the job. Hence the need for laws which
    >name specific things which are considiered illegal
    >discrimination. Is it perfect? No. But I don't think there
    >are any reasonable alternatives.

Well, I find that sick and fascist. I don't think for moment that I have
the ABILITY to know who is best for a job or who would make the best tenant
beyond any case that directly affects me.

Unlike you, I think people need to have their Freedom of Association left
alone -- if they want to live in a adults only apartment, or a nudist apartment
or a hispanic only apartment or hire only homosexuals, that is their right.

We should mind our own business and let other people pursue happiness
the way they see fit.

Of course, most people just can't STAND to see other people living and
enjoying their lives in ways they see as not "right".



-- 
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 ...)
From: sandya@hpfcmdd.fc.hp.com (Sandy A)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:26:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Organization: HP Mechanical Design Division