From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:09:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep29.171046.28005@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
# (phil)
# /Wow! Shudder! Gasp! What, you mean that maybe Clayton is calling for
# /freedom SO strong that people might ACTUALLY allowed to do something that
# /YOU consider STUPID!?
# 
# Not stupid; illegal.  And a violation of civil liberties.
# 
# But since you spoke up, I put the same question to you, Phil:
# 
#    IF: you believe that it is perfectly legal to discriminate
#    according to your heart's content in a private situation,
#     
#    AND IF: You are calling non-religious employment & for-profit
#    rentals a private situation,
#     
#    THEN: You must also support an employer who refuses to hire
#    blacks or Jews.

Supporting the right of someone to do something unpleasant
(free speech, homosexual sex, drug abuse) isn't the same as
supporting them.  They have the right to do it -- as unpleasant
as I find it.

#    AND: You must also support the right of a landowner not to
#    rent to blacks or Jews.
#    
#     Checkmate.

Or your right to engage in sodomy with the man of your choice.
Something I also find unpleasant -- but unlike you, I know better
than to pass a law simply because I disapprove of the private
actions of consenting adults.

# /It would be funny if it wasn't so sick & frustrating -- all the little closet
# /fascists that just CAN'T see why people should have the freedom to do
# /things that they don't approve of. 
# 
# 1.  Because the legal right to discriminate does not exist

The legal right to discriminate is purely a matter of legislative
action -- just like the legal right to have homosexual sex.  Both
can be changed legislatively.

# 2.  Because the govt has always, ever since the beginning of this country,
#     reserved to itself the right to regulate trade and commerce and to
#     place restrictions on both for the preservation of the general welfare

Ever since the beginning of this country, the government has reserved
itself the right to prohibit sodomy.  Does that make sodomy laws right?

# 3.  The philosophical basis for your argument is a libertarian belief which
#     has no legal foundation in this country; i.e., the existence of a right 
#     of association

And that libertarian belief is your only hope of stopping sodomy
laws in places like Georgia.  Happier, now?

# Hmmm. . . So far you have called me an ayatollah, and a fascist (in
# another post)
# 
#     ## Oh yes. The little fascist. 
# 
# and a couple of other things, also, too juvenile and insignificant to 
# mention here.
# 
# But you know, the principle I advocate (nondiscrimination) would
# not have been at all welcome in Nazi Germany; it would have forced
# them to treat Jews, gypsies, and gays equally.  Your attitude would
# have been very welcome, though.  Encouraged, even; as a way to
# deal with "undesireables".

The principle you advocate (no distinction between public and 
private) would have been completely welcome in Nazi Germany, where
laws were passed to REQUIRE discrimination, and individuals who
chose to ignore those laws put themselves at great risk.  Jews
were NOT ALLOWED to hire female Gentiles under 45 -- regardless
of whether the two parties involved wished to enter into an
employment arrangement.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc