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.