Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!bbncca!msimpson
From: msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Message-ID: <958@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 12:20:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.958
Posted: Mon Sep 24 12:20:35 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 08:31:07 EDT
References: <174@usfbobo.UUCP>  <1136@pyuxn.UUCP>  <180@usfbobo.UUCP>  <2796@allegra.UUCP> <183@usfbobo.UUCP>
Reply-To: msimpson@bbncca.UUCP (Mike Simpson)
Followup-To: <2796@allegra.UUCP> (<183@usfbobo.UUCP>)
Distribution: net.motss,net.religion
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 64

In article <183@usfbobo.UUCP> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes:

~| The ultimate goal of civil rights rhetoric has to be civil
~| rights legislation.  If you would include homosexuals as a minority
~| under current civil rights initiatives, then you would penalize
~| those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals.

	Well, discrimination against people who discriminate
against homosexuals certainly isn't right.  (One should have the
right to be wrong.) But then, neither is discrimination against homosexuals. 

~| Suppose that I am an employer and that the federal government
~| has just outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
~| One of my employees comes out of the closet.  I confront him
~| about it and he confirms that he definitely engages in homosexual
~| acts and intends to continue doing so.  Being a caring, loving
~| person, and not wanting to see him continue in a lie unchallenged
~| and so confuse himself and others, I immediately fire 'him.

	Two questions:
	1) How is firing an employee that is gay being 'caring'
and 'loving'?
	2) What is the 'lie' involved here, and how is he
confusing himself and others?

~| Suppose I refuse to sell my home to homosexuals?  Suppose I work in
~| a government agency and refuse to award contracts to homosexual
~| businessmen?  Would you have me "educated" about "tolerance" in
~| counseling sessions?  That won't work.  I've already had 16 years
~| of that kind of "education" and haven't learned the lesson yet.

	Again, I believe that you have a right to be wrong.  If I
were denied a contract by you simply because of my homosexuality,
I would immediately begin notifying other people I did business
with and urge them not to do business with you.  Of course, the
easiest way to get around the government agency's refusal to
award contracts to homosexuals would be to privatize the agency.
Therefore, if you didn't like the way agency X did business, go
to agency Y.

~| Here's the issue:  do you advocate federal legislation/mandates/whatever
~| that would recognize homosexuals as a protected minority.  Why?  What
~| specifically do you propose?  How will you simultaneously protect those
~| who obstinately refuse to accept your concept of "tolerance"?

        I am against quotas, skin color notwithstanding.  To me,
they simply imply "Well, youre not REALLY good enough to get this
position, but the government says we have to let 'your kind' in,
so, ...".  Neither do I believe that homosexuals should be a
"protected" (whatever that means) minority.  If you start saying
that 10% of all jobs should go to gays/women/people of
color/whatever, you have just about guaranteed that NO MORE THAN
10% of all jobs will go to gays/women/people of color/whatever. 


	My proposition is that race, color, sexual orientation or
preference, creed, etc.  should be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in dealing
with another person.    One should only be concerned with
another's ability.
-- 
   Mike Simpson, BBN
   msimpson@bbnccf  (ARPA)
   {decvax,ihnp4,ima,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
   617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)