Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!manis From: manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <629@ubc-vision.CDN> Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 15:27:17 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.629 Posted: Thu Oct 11 15:27:17 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 17:42:49 EDT References: <570@pucc-i> Organization: UBC Vision, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 34 Seems to me we're talking about whether equal protection is really equal protection or not. In both the Canadian and U.S. Constitutions there's a guarantee that everyone is entitled to equal protection and due process (actually, the Canadian provision comes into effect next year). This means that if you're hiring, you're supposed to treat all the candidates the same way; whether they're gay, Jewish, socialist, or eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches has (for almost all jobs) no relevance. In the case of Howard and Susan, the position was advertised as being open to the most competent qualified applicant. If the position had been as a minister at Jerry Falwell's church, then neither Howard nor Susan would have been qualified: Howard would presumably have been unable to accept instructions from his employer re counselling gay people, while Susan would not have the ordination credentials required by a Baptist church. But the vast majority of jobs don't impose such requirements. I would certainly never dream of asking the sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or political attitudes of an individual I was considering hiring; and, even if information on these subjects was volunteered, I would do the best I could to ignore it. One has to treat individuals alike, simply because otherwise one could *never* be fair. This, of course, has nothing to do with my private attitudes. I might well consider that someone (say a regular viewer of Jimmy Swaggart) had religious beliefs that were harmful to them. The obvious thing to do in that case is to keep my mouth shut. As long as such issues are kept out of the workplace (it's one thing to be open about such things, and quite another to be dogmatic), it's really not appropriate for an employer to comment. Finally, let me say that I find David Brunson's remarks tiresome.