cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes: >#  ># Having completely ># dived into the abyss of believing that there are no queers in the world ># who think differently from the child-molestation-advocating minority on ># soc.motss, he doesn't even notice that he's starting a sentence with ># "They believe" when the referent of that "they" is millions of people. ># "...so few as to be irrelevant..." > >If you don't want to be lumped together as a group, stop insisting >on being treated as a member of a group.  Please point out where I have said I even _was_ a member of that group, much less asked to be treated as such, much less insisted upon it.  >Sexual orientation is not defined by the anti-discrimination law >that was passed last year.  Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation?  Wait a minute.  You've been claiming for quite a while now that pedophilia, according to CA state law, is a sexual orientation.  Now your position is that the law doesn't specifically exclude it?  You know damn well what's going to happen.  Some guy in a NAMBLA T-shirt's going to apply at a day-care, they're going to turn him down, he's going to take it to court, and the court's going to rule that sexual orientation is defined as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.  Unless and until that court decides that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, you have no business saying so.  ># "Silence = Death" pin or something.  They turn me down because of ># that. > >I wholeheartedly support their right to take this action.  I wouldn't >do it myself, unless it was something like the NAMBLA T-shirt.  Despite the fact that all homosexuals are lying bastards?  ># How about:  a black man applies for a job at a bank.  The bank decides, ># based on statistics, a black person would be more likely to steal ># money, and denies the man the job.  Would you support the bank's right ># to this freedom? > >I support their right to do so [deletia] but [deletia]  Ah.  So, for example, you are opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?  >Here's the law that was passed and signed by the governor: > >     The people of the State of California do enact as follows: > > 1       SECTION 1.  The purpose of this act is to codify > 2  existing case law as determined in Gay Law Students v. > 3  Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 24 Cal. 3d 458 (1979) > 4  and Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 235 Cal. App. 3d 654 > 5  (1991) prohibiting discrimination based on sexual > 6  orientation. > 7       SEC. 2.  Section 1102. is added to the Labor Code, to > 8  read: > 9       1102.1.  (a) Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit >10  discrimination or disparate treatment in any of the terms >11  and conditions of employment based on actual or >12  perceived sexual orientation. >              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >13       (b)  This section shall not apply to a religious >14  association or corporation not organized for private >15  profit, whether incorporated as a religious or public >16  benefit corporation.  There's no "for purposes of this act, the term 'sexual orientation' will be defined as" section?  No definitions anywhere?  Did they run this through the state Congress on an accelerated schedule or something?