Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <205@usfbobo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 13:44:53 EDT Article-I.D.: usfbobo.205 Posted: Tue Oct 16 13:44:53 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 08:26:42 EDT References: <570@pucc-i>, <629@ubc-vision.CDN> Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa Lines: 54 [] From: manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) >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. We are talking about homosexuals. NOT Jews, NOT socialists, and NOT people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. There are STILL sodomy laws on the books in most civilized states (talking about the U.S.). What we are talking about is a proposed radical shift in U.S. public policy. It is currently NOT illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. Some are proposing to make discrimination against homosexuals illegal. Currently homosexuality is illegal and discrimination against homosexuality is legal. HR-427 and other proposed initiatives seek to make homosexuality legal and discrimination against homosexuality illegal. >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. I don't run my business the same way you do. Why will you force me to conform to something that is abhorrent to me? >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. My religion IS, in fact, practiced in the workplace. I believe that God will prosper me according to my righteousness. Your definition of righteousness is disgusting to me. Why can't we just leave things the way they are? Why will you have me thrown in jail, or legally forced out of business because I refuse to accept your warped morality? >Finally, let me say that I find David Brunson's remarks tiresome. I would like to be more entertaining. Unfortunately I am faced with the mundane and sober task of stemming an increasingly perverted tide of public opinion that will redefine me from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. -- Your friend, David Brunson