From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Extent of Antigay Discrimination in CA Was (Re: UPI: Wilson signs gay employment rights bill)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 05:31:01 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <12575@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <9209282239.AA21552@client.its.rpi.edu>, buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>> 	When Wilson vetoed AB101 last year, he argued that homosexuals were
>> already protected from job discrimination under a broad interpretation
>> of the state's labor code. Wilson ordered his labor commissioner,
>> Victoria Bradshaw, to accept discrimination complaints against
>> homosexuals several weeks later after a state appeal court upheld that
>> interpretation of the law.
>> 	Since then, 87 gays and lesbians have filed discrimination complaints
>> with Bradshaw's office. The parties have settled in 10 of the cases, and
>> 38 are under investigation, spokesman John Duncan said.
>> 	Four complaints by homosexuals were found valid, and 17 were
>> adjudicated in favor of the employer, Duncan said.
>
>
>This certainly gives us an idea how many homophobic employers there
>are in California.
>
>In one year, in a state with 30 million people, a total of 87 complaints
>have been filed -- based on the 4:17 win/loss ratio, we can assume
>that of the 56 complaints outstanding, there will be a total of 17
>cases of antigay discrimination in one whole year.
>
It is interesting how we attempt to extract 'valid' information for
statistics, that are at best 'useless'.  

1) 30 million people includes everyone- childern, (un)employed people,
house wifes, etc. etc., so if you want to make this comparasion of 
complaints to population, at least make it a correct one.

2) 4:17 win/loss ratio, for this same among of statistics who cares,
it doesn't tell you anything.  Even a full fledged study would somehow
lack all of the data it requires.

3) I have been verbally and 'covertly' discriminated against because
of being gay.  It is real and if you haven't been there you don't know
what you are talking about.

>This tells me that the homosexual fascist lobby's delusions of how
>homophobes run all the companies, all the apartment buildings, etc.,
>is just delusion.

Again- if you haven't experienced it you just don't know.  And as in
all cases of people who feel and experience a form of oppression they
reaction will be sharp and powerful once they see their opportunity
to promote change.

I would start to worry if these so-called 'gay facist' show up at
your door making demands of you.  
>
>This is really about suppressing free speech.

How did you derive this conclusion given the premises you submitted.
Free Speech is an area of great ambiguity.  IMHO no one, lesser than
a god who controls everything, is allowed to tell anyone else that
they are evil or wrong or immoral... they may as a function of rights
state their discontent with a situation or dislike of situation via
channels and language that do not degrade.
>
>-- 
>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.


S. Hauskins
Leave your ignorance behind, embrace new ideas and knowledge.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex