HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ops Mgr <ENS@tigger.jvnc.net>
Subject: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Originator: ENS@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:13:01 GMT

mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
>>>>                   "Colorado, Where else would you want to ski?"

>>>Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
>>>lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?

>> Or how about a place where its not acceptable to grant special
>>treatment and priviledges to certain groups of individuals.

>I'm not aware of any such place.  Every single state, county, and municipality
>in the US that I know of has laws on the books protecting some groups from
>discrimination. 

(Its just this kind of overly broad, completely unsubstantiable generalization
that can make one look really foolish...)

>Usually, the laws protect on the basis of race and/or gender;
>often, religious beliefs and marital status; occasionally, sexual orientation.
>Colorado is the only state in the history of the Union ever to explicitly
>single out a group of citizens and constitutionally forbid them from obtaining
>any civil rights protections.

 Well isn't it about time that a state has finally decided that no one
group of individuals should be granted more favourable treatment over
any other.

 You seem really screwed up with this, how can any state pass a law that
forbids people "from obtaining any civil rights protections"?

 Completely preposterous.

>Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado

 "Hooray for Colorado".  Ski elsewhere then... and quit whining.
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Subject: Re: Work Laws
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 00:57:52 GMT

>I'm not very familiar with the Law and regulations.  Can A fire B
>without a reason related to the work of B?  For example, if I come to
>work without a tie, can my boss fire me for that?

Depends.  Absent any other arrangements, yes.  However, if the company your
boss works for (or owns, a much rarer case) has an official policy about
justifiable causes for termination and this firing violated the policy, you
would have grounds for recourse.

In a few enumerated areas other than tie wearing, local, state, or federal
laws come into play (eg: if you were fired entirely because of your race).
Out of the thousands of reasons for termination, only a handful are so
restricted, and that number grows very slowly.  I don't think "tie wearing"
is going to make the list, so the paranoids can rest easy.

However, the tobacco lobby pushed a bill in Colorado which was more from the
other side (specifying that in general non-work activities should not cause
termination, rather than specifying more details.  I don't know all the facts
about that.

Newsgroups: co.general
From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu (Barbara Dyker)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:52:11 GMT

In article <1ihqi9INNdai@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com> mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)  
writes:
> Emerson Schwartzkopf (eschwa@teal.csn.org) wrote:
> : Hey, this might be a little mundane to ask, but can we move the Amendment
> : 2 discussion to co.politics.amend2.discuss? The group needs a little
> : action, and the co.general area could use a break.
> 
> Two problems with that - it doesn't reach people outside Colorado trying to  
get
> more information to help decide whether or not they wish to participate in a
> boycott (note this particular thread originated in rec.skiing), and it isn't
> even universal here in Colorado - it's not on my system, for instance.

This is being fixed as we ascii.  The world will have access to  
co.politics.amend2.*.

Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
Computer Systems Manager               Campus Box 430B, ECEE00-69
barb@cs.colorado.edu                   University of Colorado
(303) 492-2545                         Boulder, CO  80309-0430
Xref: sparky co.general:2463 rec.skiing:9376 rec.travel:17547
From: mayo@pa.dec.com (Bob Mayo)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Date: 7 Jan 1993 02:53:33 GMT
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: mayo.pa.dec.com

Somebody writes:  (exact reference was deleted from previous article)
>: That is pure B***S**T.  You obviously are not in a position to do any
>: hiring/firing.  If you were, you would know that the ONLY grounds for
>: firing a person are work performance or general layoff.

What about:

	1) Drug use outside of work that doesn't affect work performance.
		Example:  A person that scores in the top 2% in objective
		    performance evaulations but consistently tests positive
		    for cocain use.
	   Can this person be fired?  It doesn't affect the employee's work
	   performance nor is it a general layoff.

	2) Sexual harassement by an employee.  Can this person be fired?  It 
	   doesn't affect the employee's work performance nor is it a general 
	   layoff.

If a person can be fired in both cases above, can the person be fired for
general immoral conduct outside of work?  Or, perhaps, felony convictions?
Or perhaps violations of community standards?  Or perhaps a lack of family
values?  Or perhaps being gay?  

There must be a line somewhere, but it appears fuzzy to me.  You claim to
be in a position to do hiring/firing.  Can you clear this up and specify where
this line actually drawn?

--Bob
From: davet@solbourne.com (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 10:35:23 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mrhappy.solbourne.com

>In article <1993Jan6.044543.10771@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John
Altinbay) writes:

>|> > "Hooray for Colorado".  Ski elsewhere then... and quit whining.
>|>
>|> By stating this, you are admitting that you support discrimination.
>|> By the way, who's whining?
>|>
>|> --
>|> John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
>|> ===============================================================
>|> There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
>|> My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.


>Obviously the spirit that guides you is not the Holy Spirit.  No
>self-respecting Christian would openly support a life style such
>as homosexuality.
>--

>==============================================================================
>DPS
>==============================================================================

Thanks for the info!  I've always considered myself a self-respecting
Christian but now I know that I was deluding myself!  I could have sworn
that Christ taught us not to judge other people (lest you be judged yourself)
but now I know that I was incorrect.  Are there any other groups I should
know about that I shouldn't support?  Like blacks, women, or maybe government
employees?  Please, DPS, show me the way!  I want to be a self-respecting 
Christian but I just can't figure out WHO to hate!!!

DaveT
-- 

Dave Taylor                     UUCP:           ...!{uunet,boulder}!stan!davet
Solbourne Computer, Inc.        Domain:         davet@solbourne.COM
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.listserv.travel-l
From: marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia Politovich)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: NCAR, Research Application Program
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:13:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.233838.4742@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcrosby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Matthew Crosby) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.230717.3233@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> smith@lurch.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.164151.29412@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>
>>I'm happy to say that I AM skiing in Colorado in March, BECAUSE the 
>>amendment was passed.  I won't have to worry about gay men staring at
>>me while I am using the restroom (hopefully all gay men will boycott
>>Colorado).
>
>"Paranoia strikes deep
> and into your heart it will creep..."
>
>I fail to see what ammendment 2 has to do with people staring at you.  All it i
>is is an unconstitutinal limitation on what laws local government can or cannot
>pass.
>
   Break!
   Hey, read your own quote re paranoia..... 
   My interpretation of the original post about gays 
    staring at this guy in the men's room was that it
    was sarcasm - it's a joke, son, it's a joke! (even 
    if not terribly original,  good, or funny....) 
   So let's chill out on this one. 
>
>--
>-Matt
>Mere anarchy is loosed upon the net!
>mcrosby@nyx.cs.du.edu  -or-  crosby@cs.colorado.edu
-- mkp


Newsgroups: co.general
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:34:00 GMT

Note: This is being posted to co.general only

Regarding Amendment 2, mjharris@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Harris) writes:

>Until now I wasn't aware of just how radical the idea of
>equality really is. Yes life was great before those damn founding fathers
>came along with that stupid constitution thing. If it wern't fer them we
>cooda had nigers *and* gays as slaves. Sheeeeit!

When the founding fathers talked about "equality", they meant equality under
the law, not equal treatment by individuals.  When one allows the concept of
"equality" to apply to government-mandated treatment by individuals, the 
door is opened to all kinds of perverted and dangerous ideas.  To wit: Jesse
Jackson's championing "Comparable Worth" legislation, whereby a bunch of
bureaucrats determine, via an arbitrarily defined set of guidelines, the
relative value to society of various professions.  If it is determined, for
example, that a teacher is more valuable than a construction worker but is
paid less, this is sufficient grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

BTW, also when the founding fathers talked about "equality", they meant
equality for white males only.


Jim Rosinski
Xref: sparky co.general:2367 rec.skiing:9178 rec.travel:17279
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: A2 *is* special treatment (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:57:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.163646.1986@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>
>>Why is A2 so hard for some to comprehend?
>>The CFV double-speak is easily revealed simply by reading A2.
>>
>>One more time, slowly:
>>
>>Before A2: 
>>  (on paper) gays/lesbians had no special treatment (favorable or unfavorable), 
>>  in fact, some cities explicitly forbid special treatment 
>>  (in limited circumstances) based on *any* sexual orientation.
>>
>>After A2: 
>>  special treatment, for people with gay/bi/lesbian orientation *only*, 
>>  is explicitly written into law.
>
>Ironic, isn't it, that after labeling a group as guilty of "double-speak",
>the author goes on to provide a splendid example of doublespeak through 
>his own words.  Anyone with two working brain cells knows that when CFV 
>refers to the purpose of Amendment 2 being to prevent "special treatment of
>homosexuals", they mean *favorable* treatment.
>


Except that they don't point out that the amendment in fact strips these
people of certain rights.  By placing the special treatment stuff in there
and concentrating on it, they managed to fool a great number of people.

Or are these people really against gay people?

Which one do you say it is, sir?


-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: chuck@teal.csn.org (Chuck Luciano)
Subject: I need a place to stay in CO Springs
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:34:36 GMT

I am going to be starting a job in the Springs on 1/11/93. I will be needing
an apartment there. I will only be living in the Springs part-time.

I would like to find an efficiency located in someones home if possible.
Otherwise a recommendation on a regular apartment would be appreciated.

I'd like something near Cheyenne Mt. where I will be working.


Chuck Luciano
email: chuck@druhi.att.com until friday
   or: chuck@csn.org

303-421-9113
-- 
==============================================================================
Name :     Chuck Luciano  Witticism : Remember, in theory, there is no
Email :    chuck@csn.org              difference between theory and practice.
Phone :    303-421-9113               However, in practice, this is not true!
Xref: sparky co.general:2383 rec.skiing:9203 rec.travel:17314
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:15:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Distribution: co
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hptrane.fc.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Eric writes:
 
: Hate to differ with you, but I'm paying higher auto insurance rates
: because I am a single male, under 25 years old. I'm clearly being
: discriminated against because of my marital status, sex and age, but
: you don't hear me crying about it.

And you wouldn't have a case anyhow.  The nondiscrimination laws generally
apply only to hiring and housing.  Next question?

: Well,
: if homosexuals are in such bad shape, being fired all the time, etc.
: how come they are above average in income?

Who says they are?  Hint - a survey of subscribers to "The Advocate" has little
or no relationship to the question, nor does the US Census figures on people
who filled out the "cohabiting" box (whatever it was called) and who both
happened to be the same sex.  Neither set is particularly representative of the
homosexual population as a whole.  The first set is really "political magazine
subscribers who happen to be homosexual"; and should be compared against the
set of all political magazine subscribers.  The second set is "two income
families, usually both males" and should be compared against aggregate male
income x2, not avergae family income.

: But then you never
: hear about the nice settlement that the company gives the homosexual
: in question when he/she files a lawsuit.

That's because, in Colorado at least, there were no laws to begin with (except
in Denver, Boulder, and Aspen) that could be used to bring suit.  I heard from
Paul Cameron that none of these laws ever resulted in a settlement, for
whatever that is worth.

: You might
: be surprised about the silent majority whom is coming to Colorado just
: because Amendment 2 was passed.

Perhaps, but don't count on it.  I'm certainly not surprised about the rather
lame attempt to sound intelligent by using "whom" in a sentence - incorrectly.
Sort of like the guy who wrote an editorial in the paper last week talking
about how he rationally and intelligently came to the conclusion that amendment
2 should be passed - and gave as one of his arguments some unsubstantiated plot
by homosexuals to steal babies from heterosexual couples to adopt and raise as
their own, since they couldn't procreate and continue the homosexual line on
their own.

--
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.
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Stripped of Civil Rights?
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:38:52 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:

>So we're saying that certain people cannot claim discrimination!

Yes, that is what I call "second order" discrimination.  


>>  Thus, this is sort of
>>"second order" discrimination.  Other states such as Georgia practice
>>"first order" discrimination against gays and lesbians by making it
>>illegal to be gay or lesbian.
>>


>We're not as bad as they are, so we're OK?

>I don't follow.

A state which has banned homosexuality outright is boycotting a state which
has denied homosexuals minority status, because of the latter state's
treatment of homosexuals.  Don't you see the contradiction?
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:19:05 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1icqmpINN88t@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>>>>                   "Colorado, Where else would you want to ski?"
>>
>>>Someplace that didn't have a constitutional amendment stripping gays,
>>>lesbians, and bisexuals of their civil rights?
>>
>> Or how about a place where its not acceptable to grant special
>>treatment and priviledges to certain groups of individuals.
>
>I'm not aware of any such place.  Every single state, county, and municipality
>in the US that I know of has laws on the books protecting some groups from
>discrimination.

Colorado Springs doesn't.  Somehow I'm not surprised....
From: ssh@snow.boulder.ibm.com (Steve Hultquist (347-3994))
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:10:06 GMT
	<1993Jan8.163841.2135@ncar.ucar.edu> <pp1r4th@lynx.unm.edu>
	<1993Jan11.180801.16256@den.mmc.com>
Reply-To: <ssh@vnet.ibm.com>
Followup-To: co.general
Organization: ISSC Boulder

>>>>> On 11 Jan 93 18:08:01 GMT, kbowles@den.mmc.com (mac bowles) said:

mac> Besides, science has shown that homosexuality is probably genetically based. 

No, "science" certainly has not.  There is no evidence that this is so.  If you
have some, please site your source.

mac> Therefore, homosexuality could not be a 'SIN', since it is a NATURAL part
mac> of existence. If you call it a 'SIN', you are calling GOD a 'SINNER' or 
mac> that he is not perfect because he has made a mistake.

Hmmm...  So anything that is natural can't be a sin?  Hmmm...  Not according to
the Bible that I've read.  In my Bible, I read that man's *natural* nature is
sinful, it is only through a spiritual rebirth that we can even *begin* to
overcome sin in our lives.
--
Steve Hultquist                          Open systems and networking specialist
Change agent, Unix weenie, powder hunter                           ISSC Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel,nyx.misc,du.general,bit.list
From: dlb@sunloaf.dazixco.ingr.com (Dave Buehmann)
Subject: Re: Colorado Ski Report
Reply-To: dlb@dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Electronics (Dazix)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:59:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.233829.17971@colorado.edu>, maman@mars.Colorado.EDU (Nathan M. Maman) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.194544.10866@dazixco.ingr.com>, dlb@sunloaf.dazixco.ingr.com (Dave Buehmann) writes:
|> DB|>     The issue is whether to grant special constitutional protection
|> DB|>     to a group of people who have no externally detectable
|> DB|>     differences from the general population.  It's quite different
|> DB|>     from granting protections to minorities whose minority status
|> DB|>     is obvious from the color of their skin.
|> 
|> What about religious beliefs then?
|> 
|> 					Nat

You're right.  It makes no sense.



Dave Buehmann         Voice:    (303) 581-2318
Intergraph (Dazix)    Fax:      (303) 581-9972
5101 Spine Road       Internet: dlb@dazixco.ingr.com
Boulder, CO  80301    UUCP: Broken for no technical reason whatsoever

Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 02:23:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.215654.25765@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.032748.21387@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>> I think most homosexuals are just a bunch of paranoid _____. Just like
>> they will label me as "homophobic" because of my last sentence.  Well,
>> if homosexuals are in such bad shape, being fired all the time, etc.
>> how come they are above average in income? This brings up the point
>> that there should be laws that reduce the number of homosexuals in
>> high level positions so that heterosexual income will be more equal to
>> homosexual income.
>
>Why does this sound to me just like arguments that used to be made--and
>are still made--about Jews?  "Jews are paranoid.  If they're in such
>bad shape, why do they control the banks and industry?  We need laws to
>reduce the number of Jews in high level positions so that Christian
>income can be more equal to Jewish income."  Welcome to the Nuremberg
>Laws.

Why not? Isn't that the entire point of special discrimination laws?
If Blacks had been making big money in the 60's it is doubtful that
they would have asked for special protection. I don't believe in
special protection for anyone unless they can clearly show there is
discrimination against them. So far homosexuals have not only failed
to show this, but the factual evidence proves that there is little
discrimination. 

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!!_______|
|______________________________[]{}__________________________________________|

Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
From: dlb@sunloaf.dazixco.ingr.com (Dave Buehmann)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado Ski Report)
Reply-To: dlb@dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Electronics (Dazix)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:11:22 GMT

In article <1if2p7INNibc@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com>, mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:


Marc,

Neither of your email addresses work:
    mjs@fc.hp.com
    marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com

Please email me a valid address.

Excerpts from bounced messages follow:


   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 fc.hp.com (ether)... 550 Host unknown
554 <mjs@fc.hp.com>... 550 Host unknown (Valid name but no data [address])



   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 hpmonk.fc.hp.com (ether)... 550 Host unknown
554 <marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com>... 550 Host unknown (Valid name but no data [address])


-- 

Dave Buehmann         Voice:    (303) 581-2318
Intergraph (Dazix)    Fax:      (303) 581-9972
5101 Spine Road       Internet: dlb@dazixco.ingr.com
Boulder, CO  80301    UUCP: Broken for no technical reason whatsoever
From: kenw@col.hp.com (Ken Wyatt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Ammendment 2 on disk?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:49:09 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpcsql.col.hp.com


Thanks to all those who have kindly sent copies of the text.

Regards, Ken
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel