From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:11:36 GMT

In article <1innm9INNgl1@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >   Next I suppose you are going to tell us that Jim Crow laws were
> > just great since they only codified the discrimination that was
> > already prevelent throughout society anyway. Sheesh.
> 
> Micheal, the question wasn't 'is it Ok that other states don't have 
> sexual orientation clauses, or it's ok to discriminate.'  The question 
> was, how is the current situation in Colorado *different* in practice 
> from a state that has no sexual orientation clause? 

  You just don't get it. How are de jure Jim Crow laws different
then de facto discrimination? There is a huge difference in whether
a state permits immoral behavior vs a state which *promotes* immoral
behavior. The latter seeks to get an aire of respectibility through
law which it would otherwise have to get through persuasion.
  You have legalized a climate which says it's OK to discriminate
against gays and lesbians -- go right ahead we won't blink while
it hypocritically would prosecute anybody who did the same thing
for religious reasons.
  Wouldn't you say that South Africa with it Aparthied policies
is several rungs down the ladder to hell then say the US which
has discrimination against blacks but certainly not legalized
or promoted discrimination?

> >   So Walter, I don't believe that I've seen you answer this one:
> > are *other* anti-discrimination laws OK,
> 
> Again, the 'correctness' of having anti-discrimination laws isn't 
> what is being asked.  The question is the effective difference from 
> Colorado to other states without such policies, be they "good" or "bad". 

  Well as someone else pointed out, there is a great difference between
a sin of omission and a sin of commission. Colorado has done the latter.
Not to say that other states wouldn't have necessarily done the same;
the fact remains that Colorado was brazen enough to become the first.

> If, however, you feel there is any relative significance to my own 
> personal views on such policies, I am in favor of anti-discrimination 
> laws that include sexual orientation clauses.  

  Well that's nice. 

> >   Unless you have some principle which says that as a general 
> > ideology anti-discimination laws are wrong, I give you just
> > about as much credence as the southerners howling about giving
> > the "niggers" and "kikes" special priviliges -- like being able
> > to vote. That is to say, none.
> 
> Where you got the idea I'm in favor of keeping other anti-dis clauses 
> and purging the orientation ones, I don't know; unless you just knee-jerkingly 
> assumed that since I was, in an UN-PC way, questioning the sacred cow 
> of "hate-state" status, I must be in favor of discrimination.   

  I meant that "you" in the royal sense. I was merely saying that
holding that certain groups (notably religious -- an undenyable 
lifestyle "choice") ought to have protected status while denying
others the same protection for irrelevent characteristics is totally
hypocritical -- and I say this coming from the other side of the
anti-discrimination fence (ie I don't believe in them). 

> So again, how is the situation in Colorado different in practice from 
> the situation in other states without anti-discrimination policies that 
> include sexual orientation, where you would also have no legal recourse 
> against being fired for being gay, like in the Cracker Barrel case? 

  One actual difference is that a court in that state could hold
the company liable through application of other anti-discimination
laws (which I believe is the case here in Ca wrt housing, or so
says Gov Wilson). The same case would be throw out in Colorado
given Co2.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)