HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:05:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.182746.1467@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.172302.2690@colorado.edu> millert@nordsieck.cs.Colorado.EDU (Todd C. Miller) writes:
>>Sure, you could be fired because you drink pepsi, but you could also sue
>>your employer because the firing was based on discrimination.  Amendment 2
>>has revoked that right for homosexuals.
>
>How, exactly, could you sue? To sue someone, you must they must have
>either caused you real (and measurable) harm or have violated a
>law. I'm not sure a court would consider a firing as "real harm":
>Baring laws on the subject, the employer has his own rights about
>who he hires and fires. In cases of conflict between two person's
>rights, where there are no relevant laws, the courts often refuse 
>to hear the case. Is there some general purpose discrimination law
>on the books (e.g. one that would include discrimination for drinking
>Pepsi?)
>
>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

I've done some hiring and firing in my time and when I was, I had to literally
be instructed by the corporate lawyer on what I could and could not
even *ask* the potential employee. They could sue me for not being *hired*
if I had asked them what their *age* was! It happens! (of course, this was
in CA where they will sue you for looking out of the corner of your eye, but
hey...)

Imagine what they could do if I had asked them if they practiced safe sex!

Yes, firing someone, even *not hiring* someone, can lead to a suit. And
this is simply a fact which can be verified by asking your favorite lawyer
(if there is such a thing).

Firing someone who depends on that job for food because their lifestyle 
is not agreeable to the boss is a Bad Thing.








-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu

Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: gina@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:59:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.171913.799@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.233328.332@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>> In <1992Nov9.184111.5685@colorado.edu> tim@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Tim Hunter) writes:
>> 
>> >co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss} - most of the discussion on the
>> >	general newsgroups for co, boulder, and cu, in addition to the
>> >	co.politics newsgroup has been the recent passage of amendment
>> >	2.  These newsgroups are intended to provide a specific place
>> >	to discuss the issues surrounding amendment 2 and to get clear
>> >	information about the amendment and it's legal implications.
>> >	The info group is moderated, and will attempt to present both
>> >	sides of the issue fairly.  The moderators are:
>> 
>> >		jules@cs.colorado.edu	(Julie DiBiase)
>> >		blough@cs.colorado.edu	(Eric Blough)
>> >		gina@cs.colorado.edu	(Gina Cherry)
>> 
>> Is this an attempt to "rid" co.general of this discussion?  Or an
>> attempt to augment it?
>> 
>> My hunch is that the topic will die down in co.general after a while,
>> until the next election at which time I have a hunch there will be a
>> "repeal the CFV amendment" round of postings.
>> 
>> Frankly, I'm glad to see co.general get the traffic.
>
>I think that Amendment 2 is an appropriate topic for co.politics.  Where,
>coincidentally, a discussion is ongoing.  Therefore, I see no reason
>for the new groups just for Amendment 2.
>
>I'd rather direct political discussion out of co.general and into
>co.politics.  I'd rather not have a whole new group just for Amendment 2.
>
>-- 
>/\     There may be honor among thieves, but there's none among politicians.
>  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
>      \______________________________________________________________________

We have been receiving requests for information about Amendment 2 from all over
the country.  Since co.politics and co.general are local groups, we thought it
was appropriate to create a newsgroup with national distribution. We are not
trying to move the discussion from co.politics, but to make it accessible to
more people. I believe that Amendment 2 does have national implications, 
since many other states are now requesting information from CFV about how to
pass their own amendment.

Gina
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: gina@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.190332.2718@mercury.cair.du.edu> tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!) writes:
>and why in the hell should it be moderated?
>so we only get to see what they want us to see?
>
>nice try.
>Tim

The newsgroup co.politics.amend2.discuss will not be moderated. This newsgroup
is intended to be used for discussion of the issue. The newsgroup
co.politics.amend2.info will be moderated. This newsgroup is intended to be
used to disseminate information about the amendment (such as the text of the
amendment) and about what is being done to repeal/uphold the amendment. 

Gina


Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:04:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.190750.7383@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>Just out of curiosity, and agreeing that such descrimination is a 
>>terrible thing, why is preventing or discouraging it automatically
>>the role of law and government?

>Who said 'automatic'?

Well, since I've seen a great deal of discussion about laws, and no
considerations of alternatives, I get the impression that people 
consider laws the automatic, first choice.

>If you can think of better, more effective ways, we're all ears.

I'm not sure about "better" in general, but since laws are no longer
an option...

I'd suggest anyone who is discriminated against unfairly write
letters to local newspapers, stating who is they think is discriminating
and why (e.g. also include _evidence_ of the discrimination.)
Everyone who opposes such practices, and feels the evidence of
discrimination is compelling, should boycott that business. 
(This probably won't work at all, unless a some newspapers pick
up on the idea and give it some publicity. It also won't work 
in places where most people don't care about discrimination. But
then, places like that didn't have anti-discrimination laws _before_
Amendment 2 passed either. In places like Boulder, it has a reasonable
chance of working.)

                                    Frank Crary
                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser)
Subject: Re: Safeway's instant rebate (spelled incompetence)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:13:51 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

One of many good reasons to avoid Safeway altogether.
-- 

 To the cat, the experimenter is problematic.
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:59:18 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1992Nov8.204200.7492@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:


>In article <1992Nov6.211523.11890@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:

>>The logic being that people, when polled, lied about how they 
>>would vote on the measure for fear of showing bigotry. 

>Wrong! Not bigotry, but they were afraid of being stereotyped by
>people who believe that homosexuals should have special rights.

First off, doesn't it say *something* when people say "I plan to vote no"
then actually vote yes?  I'm sure *some* of them didn't do what they said
because they "wanted" to vote no but when it came time to punch it, instinct
took over and they went yes.

As for people being afraid of stereotyping -- during a phone poll?!?
People really care what the pollster's $5/hr phone caller thinks?!?
I hope people aren't that shallow to care.  (It might be none of their
business and they answer just to get rid of the caller, but that's not
what you've suggested happened.)

>Isn't it interesting how suddenly 1/2 the people in Colorado are
>bigots and gay bashers? Yep, don't come to Colorado 'cause we can beat
>the shit out of you and not worry about being punished.

>It's quite clear to me that the anti 2 people are the bigots and
>stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
>hating gays.

It's almost worse than "hate", it's "don't care".  Apathy.  (Or I'm sure
some are in the "oh we *love* them and want to *help* them see the
error of their ways, let me quote the Bible..." category.  As out of
touch with reality as I feel these people are, at least they have some
reason for voting yes; but apathy is a much more dangerous problem.)

>I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
>certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
>away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
>people are damn tired of it!

Ok... I'm listing...  Please answer:

1)  What are the special privileges everyone is getting?
And
2)  Which of YOUR rights have been removed?

These seem to be the focus of several people's justification for voting
yes, but I have yet to see a clear list of what these items are.

(Answer carefully, as you know I intend to critique your answer. :-)
For example, "not allowing discrimination based on skin color" is
in neither category, since everyone has a skin color (so not in #1) and
it doesn't remove any rights, just adds them (so not in #2).  Unless,
that is, you used to value the right to discriminate based on skin color,
in which case, I would have to agree, you have lost a right -- and I'd
be eager to say this is a good "right" to lose.  Ok, so, let's have
some lists...
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general
From: urban@CS.ColoState.EDU (david urban)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 21:58:11 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <Nov06.060107.50183@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> valeria@lamar.ColoState.EDU () writes:
>To those that are moaning and complaing about how Amendment #2 is going to 
>
>bring the end of the world to the gay community, let us examine the  
>
>Amendment as it was written on the ballot. 
>
>	Shall there be an Amendment to Article II of the Colorado Constitution
>	to prohibit the state of Colorado and any of its political subdivisions
>	from adopting or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
>	homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships
>	constitutes or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	status,quota preferences, or discrimination.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>My question to the fools and idiots is: Where in the law does it say that
>
>discrimation is lawful. Once again the press, the gay rights groups and the
>
>poltical groups are misleading the people of Colorado.l voted for #2 and still
>
>have no problems sleeping.
>
>I know that I will be called all types of names and will be flamed for these
>
>comments but who cares about narrow minded bigots.
>
>It was a good day when #2 passed.
>
>
>
>
The trouble is the narrow minded bigots are people like you.  You would think
a person with a college education would have an open mind about issues like
this and be able to think for himself.  As far as discrimination is concerned,
you did't read the amendment very well. I put carats under the part that if
read says they can't claim discrimnation.  

The major problem I see is if your boss doesn't like you. He could claim
you displayed homosexual tendencies and fire you for being gay whether you
are or not. Now due to the amendment you have no legal recourse such as 
claiming discrimination in courts to get your job back.

The people who wrote the amendment claim to be christians which doesn't fit
with my understanding of bein a christian.  If you are christian, you should
have tolerance of other people's lifestyles or habits.  Remember the golden 
rule do unto others as tou would have them do unto you. 

This law will give people the right to refuse housing, job opportunities,
and the other comforts of life most people take for granted since they
are subject to discrimination.

The whole campaign by the CFV was based on lies, hysteria and misrepresentations.  I cannot believe the people of Colorado showed such stupidity and ignorance
when they approved this legislation.

By the way, next time include your signature so we really know your not afraid
of somebody knowing who you are.

David S. Urban


-- 
David S. Urban   email : urban@cs.colostate.edu
To be the person, you must know the person. To know the person, you must
understand the person. To understand the person, you must listen. To listen,
you must open your mind and put aside all preconceived ideas and notions.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@oldfield.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: csu.cs.grads
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 22:54:47 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@oldfield.colostate.edu
Organization: CSU

In article 6717@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:

Results of Colorado Amdendment Ballot questions:
----------------------------------------------

Referendum A: (rights of crime victims)
	YES: 30%
	NO:  30%

Referendum B: (obsolete provisions in state constitution)
	YES: 65%
	NO:  35%

Referendum C: (local gaming elections)
	YES: 58%
	NO:  42%

Amendment 1:(voting on taxes)
	YES: 54%
	NO:  46%

Amendment 2: (homosexual rights)
	YES: 54%	(a sad comment on our state, IMHO)
	NO:  46%	

Amendment 3: (expand gambling) - Western Co.
	YES:	25%
	NO:	75%

Amendment 4: (expand gambling) - Southern and Eastern Co.
	YES:	28%
	NO:	72%

Amendment 5: (expand gambling) - Parachute
	YES:	29%
	NO:	71%

Amendment 6: (Educational standard and tax)
	YES:	45%
	NO:	55%

Amendment 7: school vouchers
	YES:	35%
	NO:	65%

Amendment 8: (Outdoors Colorado - lottery funds)
	YES: 	71%
	NO:	27%

Amendment 9: (expand gaming - lower downtown)
	YES:	19%
	NO:	81%

Amendment 10: (limit spring bear hunt)
	YES:	60%
	NO:	40%



Source: Colorado Daily

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Farrow-Student SysAdmin/Programmer, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing & Network Services, Boulder, Colorado, USA, phone: (303) 492-4428 
Internet: farrow@spot.colorado.edu, farrow@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu



---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson)
Subject: Re: Safeway's instant rebate (spelled incompetence)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 19:26:24 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Nov4.191651.14545@col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>Another good reason is:  a Safeway store refused to allow me $20
>cashback, even though I has a Safeway check cashing card (from
>another store in another town), unless I provided my SSAN.
>
>I've not shopped Safeway since.
>-- 
>
Safeway in Fort Collins refused to issue me a check cashing card without
my SS#.  After numerous attempts to get them to budge, without
success, I gave up.  That was 5 years ago.  I've not shopped there since.
-- 
james lee peterson				peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
dept. of computer science                       
colorado state university		"Some ignorance is invincible."
ft. collins, colorado  (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Boycott
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:51:13 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov12.215330.29856@mercury.cair.du.edu> tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!) writes:
>I'm selling Boycott Colorado t-shirts. They're not fancy, just 
>simple minded and (probably not very) effective. The cost per 
>shirt depends on how much you don't spend in 1993 on products 
>from Colorado, as a result of amendment 2 passing. All proceeds
>will be donated to the people that lose their jobs as a result of
>absurd attacks on Colorado's economy, which is based on a whole hell
>of a lot more than meat, beer and skiing.
>
>Your conscience will thank you.
>
>Tim
>(faking a laugh)

But since youy live in colorado, and these T-shirst are a PRODUCT of colorado,
I have to boycott your BOYCOTT COLORADO t-shirts.. apparently we have a dilemma
;)
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general
From: millert@nordsieck.cs.Colorado.EDU (Todd C. Miller)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:23:02 GMT

You're missing the point here.  As many people have pointed out, Amendment
2 makes it impossible for someone who is gay (and fired because of this)
to claim that they were discriminated against.

>I guess this also means that I can be fired because I drink Coke
>instead of Pepsi, read the Post instead of the News, like FOX better
>than ABC, ride public transportation instead of owning a car, have
>brown hair instead of blonde, have a phone number with an 871 prefix,
>like IBM's better than Mac's, have more than 5 video tapes, have a
>2400 baud modem instead of a 9600, live in Denver and not
>Littleton....how many more reasons do I have to give?

Sure, you could be fired because you drink pepsi, but you could also sue
your employer because the firing was based on discrimination.  Amendment 2
has revoked that right for homosexuals.

>That's the 2 supporter's argument as I understand it. You are saying
>that since there are no special laws protecting homosexuals that you
>can be fired for that reason. Well, I guess this now means that since
>Coke drinkers don't have special protection they can be fired too.
>Where do you draw the line???

It is important to note here that there are no laws on the books in Colorado
that I am aware of that afford homosexuals special rights or priviledges.
I believe the Denver and Boulder ordinances merely state that you cannot
discriminate based on sexual orientation.  IE: a straight employer can't fire
someone because they are gay and likewise a gay employer can't fire an
employee because they are straight.  You've been hornswoggled by CFV's
retoric.

 - todd
-- 
 Todd C. Miller    millert@cs.Colorado.EDU    Sys/Adm Undergraduate Operations
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Summary: No on 2 = bigot
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:42:00 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado


In article <1992Nov6.211523.11890@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:

>The logic being that people, when polled, lied about how they 
>would vote on the measure for fear of showing bigotry. 

Wrong! Not bigotry, but they were afraid of being stereotyped by
people who believe that homosexuals should have special rights.

Isn't it interesting how suddenly 1/2 the people in Colorado are
bigots and gay bashers? Yep, don't come to Colorado 'cause we can beat
the shit out of you and not worry about being punished.

It's quite clear to me that the anti 2 people are the bigots and
stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
hating gays. I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
people are damn tired of it!

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}__I've got seven in the clip and one______|
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}__in the chamber. Will that be enough??___|
|__lesatz@phakt.usc.edu________[]{}__If it ain't, I'm in BIG trouble!!_______|
|______________________________[]{}__________________________________________|
From: 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Mountain Biking
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:05:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: na
Reply-To: 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eb5ts4.ebay.sun.com

does any body know how I can get a hold of Julie Furtado:
From: imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Date: 6 Nov 1992 17:29:03 -0700
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
Distribution: co
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin-gw.solbourne.com

In article <BxAz50.EvL@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com> ljlucas@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Lori Lucas) writes:
>It's not like Boulder and Denver are the only cities for miles away.
>... Niwot

Niwot is part of rural Boulder County.  It is not an incorporated
city.

Warner
-- 
Warner Losh		imp@parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:27:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.172302.2690@colorado.edu> millert@nordsieck.cs.Colorado.EDU (Todd C. Miller) writes:
>Sure, you could be fired because you drink pepsi, but you could also sue
>your employer because the firing was based on discrimination.  Amendment 2
>has revoked that right for homosexuals.

How, exactly, could you sue? To sue someone, you must they must have
either caused you real (and measurable) harm or have violated a
law. I'm not sure a court would consider a firing as "real harm":
Baring laws on the subject, the employer has his own rights about
who he hires and fires. In cases of conflict between two person's
rights, where there are no relevant laws, the courts often refuse 
to hear the case. Is there some general purpose discrimination law
on the books (e.g. one that would include discrimination for drinking
Pepsi?)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general