HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boyc
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:05:49 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 18059@tc.cornell.edu, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>Lots of stuff seems to be illegal in Colorado.
>
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

I suppose that Colorado is less reasonable in what is on the books as being illegal
than, say New York.  Lets see, Last I checked smoking dope seems to be illegal
even in New York (although it occasionally appears that you "pick and choose the
laws you wish to follow" in this regard from some of what you post).

the point is, that things are illegal everywhere.  Colorado has legalized many things
that are illegal in other states--gambling, for one.  Most states have made it illegal
to purchase alcohol on sundays (strange they chose this particular day, huh?!).

Is there a point to your statement above that makes Colorado worse than other states.

I have examples from California regarding emmision control standards that some would
say are unreasonable.  (however these some people work for Chrysler).

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

Newsgroups: co.general,boulder.general,co.politics
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Organization: NCAR
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:52:26 GMT

In article <Nov16.221119.53899@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.195330.10398@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>   So all those who are advocating a total boycott on Colorado, especially
>>>having seen that Boulder, Denver, and just about every other major population
>>>center voted it down, should consider that its people from OTHER parts of
>>>the country that got the darn thing passed here, not the locals.

>I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!
>Somehow, more than half the population voted in favor of the ammendment.  Where are
>these people??  Last I checked, Colorado Springs has much less than half of the
>states population!!

There's no reason to think that in any subsection of the state, 54% of
the voters support amendment 2.  Indeed, I thought it was common knowledge
that different cities had substantially different views.  Specifically,
amendment 2 failed in metro Denver & Boulder (and presumably Aspen), but
was passed in Colorado Springs, and rural east & west Colorado.

Furthermore, since Denver, Boulder, & Aspen (as examples) have *actively*
sought to outlaw sexual discrimination, how does one rationalize
boycotting them?  How many other cities in the US have done as much as
Denver, Boulder & Aspen to outlaw sexual discrimination?

-Brian
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:42:26 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>I'm sorry: I originally mis-read that question, and didn't catch the "never"...
>As far as a removal of existing protections, there is a distinction but
>not one that has been raised before the Supreme Court (to my limited 
>knowledge.) That means it's anybody's guess how they would rule. I
>suspect they would apply the "reasonable relationship test": Does the
>law have a reasonable relationship to a valid state interest? If
>so, they would uphold it. "Reasonable relationship", by the way, is
>extremely vague and means, essentially, and half-credible excuse the
>State's lawyer can dream up. In your hypothetical anti-Mexican 
>amendment's case, "To reduce future unemployment by discouraging immigration"
>would constitute a "reasonable relationship." Alternately, the Court
>might subject the law to "strict scrutiny": Upholding the law only
>is the state can prove that the law is the best and most direct way
>to address its purpose. They might do this if the law in question effects
>a "prefered freedom" (which include voting rights) and/or effects a 
>protected minority (ethnic/cultural minorities and usually considered this.)
>However, the current Court generally supports the doctorine of "judicial
>restraint", meaning they prefer to avoid the "strict scrutiny" test as
>much as they can. I rather doubt the hypothetical law, or Amendment 2,
>could survive strict scrutiny; however a good lawyer for the State could
>keep the matter on the level of reasonable relationships.
>                                                         Frank Crary
>                                                         CU Boulder

I cannot see the present court even consider using anything stricter
than a rational relationship test. The portion of the poplulation 
that may suffer as a result of Amdt. 2 has few of the indicia that
the court likes to see, such as powerlessness. Indeed, withness the
boycott, the Gay community probably has political power way in excess
of their portion of the poplulation. Second, several, if not many,
of the members of the court tend to look at sexual orientation as a
lifestyle choice. 

I think that you must look at the minorities that have been granted
special or heightened scrutiny. The court has become more and more
sparing in such treatment. One even wonders if intermediate scrutiny
for sex discrimination is grudging.


Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boyc
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:34:13 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article Czx@unix.amherst.edu, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <Nov19.195353.62299@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls) writes:
>
>> but then I thought, "Well, actually I'm *against* amendment 2, so I should
>> be happy about that."  I don't know what to think now.  I'd sure hate to 
>> support anyone with an attitude as bad as yours.
>
>That's because you have the political savvy of a five-year old.
>You're not interested in supporting anything that's right if your
>precious pride is wounded by the people who support it.
>
Not very mature to call someone a 5-year-old, but whatever.
What is "Right" that he is supposed to support?  Your particular point of view?
Is that the ONLY "right" point of view?  What does political savvy have to do
with disagreeing with someone whom you think is "Wrong?"

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

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Beers reviewed (professionally)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:47:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.152513.10617@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>   *	Typical of its country and style
>>  **	Above average
>> ***	Worth seeking out
>>****	World Classic

>Hey! Where does 'putrid' lie on this scale?!?
>On that scale, there are no awful beers!

What do you think "Typical of its country and style" means, when refering
to mass produced American brands?

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (amendment 2)
Summary: amendments vs articles
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:47:41 GMT

sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>>As I wrote the above, I started wondering about Amendment 2 _vs_ Article I
>>of the US Constitution...
...
>>...Or am I badly misunderstanding Article I?
...
>You're thinking of the First Amendment, not Article I. This *is* mentioned in
>the suit that was filed to overturn 2.

Yes, I do know the difference.  What I meant was, in popular terms, the
"First Amendment".  The notational scheme is potentially confusing, but the
body of the US Constitution is divided into 7 (VII?:-) sections called
"articles".  These are followed by the "Amendments", each of which is
labeled an "article"--e.g., the "Bill of Rights" comprises the first ten
articles of the amendments to the US Constitution.  I had thought to make
the discussion slightly less confusing by using "article" in reference to
the US Constitution and "amendment" in reference to the recent ballot
issue.  I see I made it worse, rather than better, by being careless about
the context of "article"...be that as it may, I hadn't seen mention of the
First Amendment in what I'd read of the suit; I'm glad to know it may also
be relevant.  Thanks, Steve (even if you do live in Co Spgs:-)
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Ain't no time to hate.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:38 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:

: Amendment
: 2 repeals and prohibits such laws in the case of homosexual or bisexual
: leanings _only_.

To pick your brain one more time, I'm a little curious about this wording
myself.  The word "leaning" is not used, but "orientation" is.  Is it possible
to interpret this in the negative sense?  That is, the intent was clearly to
remove the right to claim discrimination from people oriented "toward"
homosexuality; could this also be applied to strike down laws that protect
those oriented "away from" homosexuality?  If so, then the argument that this
amendment gives heterosexuals more rights than homosexuals falls apart (note,
I've never made such an argument; I've always wondered about this aspect).  I
still suspect it could be struck down on the basis that it explicitly denies
protection to a group that has the potential to deserve it - homosexuals seem
no less powerless than Christians, for example, but the latter group gets
protection.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:33:26 GMT

Van Martin (vanm@col.hp.com) wrote:
: 
:   Criteria originally instituted for special protection under
:   Civil Rights Act of 1964:

My God, man, have you just stepped out from under a rock?  Are you seriously
not aware that everyone on this newsgroup knows perfectly well those guidelines
have absolutely nothing to do with anti-discrimination legislation, which is
the whole subject of discussion?  You do not have to qualify under those
guidelines to receive protection against discrimination; only to received
affirmative action protection, which no one in their right mind has ever
claimed homosexuals should be eligible for anyhow.

:   Wall Street Journal, 18-Jul-91, from a Gay Marketing Research 
:   firm claimed:
: [ various BS deleted ]

And surely you are aware this survey was among "readers of an upscale gay
rights magazine", not "homosexual households"?

:   Christianity has protection from particular discrimination based on
:   freedom-of-religion under the Constitution.

Wrong.  Read that first amendment again.  It says nothing whatsoever about
discrimination.  It simply guarantees the government won't establish a state
religion, nor will it prevent you from exercising your own religion.  It says
absolutely nothing about the right of a private citizen or business to
discriminate based on religion; separate civil rights laws were set up to cover
that.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu (Chris Webster)
Subject: Re: Local beers (was: Info on local tavern.
Reply-To: chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu
Organization: Research Aviation Facility, NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:39:47 GMT

huntting@advtech.uswest.com (Brad Huntting) writes:
>>>Does the Walnut Brewery bottle their beer and distribute to liquor stores?
>
>weaverb@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Brian Weaver) writes:
>> Yes, it's Buffalo Gold. 
>
>Mark. Gooley writes:
>>However, this is brewed under contract by Boulder Brewing.
>
>>Hence (IMHO) it is undrinkable, like all other Boulder Brewing products.
>
>>You have to go to the Walnut Brewery to get the real thing.
>
>But at least they let you bring it home in 1/5gal bottles from the
>Walnut Brewery.
>
>brad

I have to disagree with Boulder Beer being undrinkable.  All of there
good beers are not available in bottle, so you have to go to the brewery
itself.  Also they only charge $2.25 for a 22oz beer and $4.50 for
pitchers and $6.35 for the half gallons.  They currently have an excellent
Bitter on tap.

--Chris
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:16:35 GMT

In article <Nov21.191046.83801@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> freedman@cs.colostate.edu writes:
>>Colorado Springs, El Paso County and the State of Colorado have no laws
>>or ordinances specifically protecting homosexuals.  No law that affects
>>Perkins Chrysler Plymouth in Colorado Springs was affected by amendment 2.

>If there were no laws specifically protection homosexuals in the State of
>Colorado, why did you want to pass a law that in your words "removes special
>protection."  Apparently, according to you, there wasn't any to begin with.

There were no such laws in Colorado Springs. There were such laws in 
Boulder, Denver and Aspen. 

>>If it was illegal for Will Perkins to fire an employee for being homosexual
>>before amendment 2 passed why is it now legal?  I just don't see anything
>>in the amendment that changes what Perkins (or any employer or landlord, etc.)
>>can do.

>prior to the ammendment, if he were to fire an employee based upon sexual
>orientation, the employee would have had a valid legal claim of descrimination.

And, without any specific laws to support the claim, an almost impossible
job of willing such a suit.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:41:13 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman) writes:
> I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!

When I moved to Colorado from North Dakota in 1986 one of the many pieces of
information I recieved about Colorado mentioned that this state is unique in
that > 50% of the population are people who moved here as opposed to people
who were born here.  This is particularly true in Colorado Springs, I'm a
little surprised whenever I meet someone who was actually born in Colorado
Springs (as in: oh, my, how interesting).  I think I know more military people
than actual Colorado Springs natives.

Another interesting population fact I heard in 1986 was that the population
West of the Mississippi River exceeded the population East of the Mississippi
for the first time in US history.  This may have changed since then, with the
exodus from California, unless they are mostly staying in western states.  I
know that many former Californians are moving to Oregon and Washington.  A
few CA companies have relocated to Southern Colorado, I don't know if the rest
of Colorado is attracting much California industry.

Getting back to your original point, I would not be one tiny bit surprised to
learn that 54% of Colorado voters were born in other states.  I would be
shocked beyond words if it could be shown that they *all* voted for amendment
2.

Dan (native American) Kary



-- 
"And that, my leige, is how we know the earth to be bananna shaped."
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:18:17 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article ncy15wl@rpi.edu, buckmr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>I don't know, did every district in Arizona vote against the MLK Day holiday
>last time around? What about the ones that DID NOT vote *for* the holiday
>this year even though the majority of the state did?
>
This is a very special case.  This is one where there was preassure from a group of
people to have THEIR particular point of view taken for all points of view.  It could
be that the people of arizona felt that MLK was a significant figure in the world,
but that there were already TOO many holidays for people to celebrate.  There are
people who believe that Hitler's birthday should be a day for celebration, but I
don't see them boycotting states that don't recognise this day.

I think, that in this (the MLK) case, the measure was turned down to show people that
Arizona won't be bullied by special interests (or the NFL).

Here at CSU, the ONLY holiday we celebrate is MLK day.  People claim that this is
due to the black school president--mabey?!  This however, does express to people
that certain people's views are more important than others.  Perhaps the people
of Arizona felt like much of the population of CSU--It's better to have NO holidays
than to decide whose holidays to have!!

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

Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:23:07 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:

: >"All you other guys, if you want legal
: >protection, just get a law passed.  But you homos, first you gotta repeal
: >a constitutional amendment, and only then can you try to get the law passed".
: 
: However, the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan ruled that inequal
: levels of protection against discrimination don't necessarily violate
: the Fourteenth Amendment.

For those of us not legal scholars, could you perhaps elaborate?

The issue, BTW, in this case isn't "levels of protection" but "accesibility of
protection", which may be a significant difference.

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls)
Subject: Boycott CU Football!!! 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:15:27 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Nov17.225655.23248@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>
>McCartney has a lifetime contract.  Boycotting CU football will most
>likely hurt the University itself, and the future careers of the 
>players (regardless of whether or not they supported #2) more than it will
>McCartney. 

 Alright!!!  Boycott CU Football!!!  Then CSU *might* have a chance
 to get some good prospects and *might* actually win a few games!

 :-)

 Jeff (go rams go!)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       Colorado State University       | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Jeff Walls - wallsj@CS.ColoState.Edu  |
| 2520 Baxter Place                     |
| Fort Collins, CO  80526               |
| (303) 226-2411                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xref: sparky co.general:1937 co.politics:2283
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Summary: just boycott the CU football games
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:47:47 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov19.220017.1720@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.155736.4928@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>[Coach McCartney] is also the highest-paid
>>employee of the State of Colorado. The coach's Neanderthal political views
>>aside, I think that's a pretty sad commentary on our priorities in this state.
>
>This paints a misleading picture that says the state government cares
>more about football than about other state government functions, and it
>ignores the fact that the Athletic Department brings *in* money for the
>University.

Does the money get put in the general fund, or does it get spent on sports?
What I learned at the University of Illinois was that donations to the
football program never seem to make it out to the academic side of the
university, and that in fact sports are a net drain on university resources.
The standard argument is that they're good for the image of the university
and promote donations to other departments, but this assertion is hard to
prove.

>What is really a sad commentary is that donations to the University
>from the alumni seem to be proportional to the success of the football
>team.

True, but that's the same with big-time football schools everywhere, and
isn't unique to Colorado.  Giving a lifetime contract to a coach who
publicly promotes garbage like amendment 2 might be unique, though (although
football coaches tend not to be sensitive, caring types in general ;-)
Newsgroups: co.general
From: dcm@csn.org (David C. Menges)
Subject: Dumb terminal and slow modem donation?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:54:06 GMT

The Denver Museum of Natural History could use a dumb terminal
and slow modem donation to join the network (via a VMS Vax + UUCP
for now).  If you would like to contribute and get a tax write-off, 
contact me.

	David Menges, dcm@csn.org, 303-273-3471.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mcclell@convex.com (Alan McClellan)
Subject: 1-way, COS/DNV - Santa Barbara
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:29:24 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

For Sale
--------

What: 		One-way ticket [United Airlines] from 
      		Colorado Springs/Denver to Santa Barbara.

Date: 		Monday, November 23

How Much:	$120 o.b.o.


-Alan
mcclell@convex.COM

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics