Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1e.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin From: nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <328@ihu1e.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 01:11:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ihu1e.328 Posted: Thu Oct 4 01:11:06 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 10:15:36 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 55 <.> > (David Brunson) > .... > How will the state judge this? Howard definitely had the paper > qualifications. Susan didn't. Howard was definitely discriminated > against because he is a homosexual. Susan definitely received > extra consideration beyond her qualifications because she is > jewish. > Once again, when the state investigator comes knocking at my > door, I will unhesitatingly say, "Yes, Howard had the better > qualifications. I *discriminated* against him." > So, some folks would have had me thrown in jail for the last > episode of discrimination. How about this one? No doubt about it. If jail is the legal punishment for discrimination you should probably be there already. It sounds like you want the right to decide who and what you can discriminate against. Why should you have that right? Do you know better than all the rest of us? This country is run according to laws that are written and passed by the officials we elect. Why don't you send your nasty articles to your congressman and senators. You have a right to your opinion, and you also have the right to voice it. They let the KKK hold marches and pass out literature. That doesn't make their opinions correct either. One issue I'd like to get some feedback on relates to this hiring scenario. What if the actual qualifications of the 2 applicants were equal. Would the interviewer then have the right to use sexual preference as the basis for the hiring decision? What group should this be discussed in? It has no particularly religious overtones, but I'm not that familiar with alternate groups. > And my proposition is that race, color, *most* creeds should be > irrelevant, but not "sexual preference". Discrimination against > persons because they are black or jewish or arab is an abomination, just > as granting homosexuals, adulterers, and other aberrant individuals > "rights" is an abomination. As a former cohabitater, I guess David would probably lump me in his group of aberrant individuals. I'm married now, all nice and legal. That doesn't mean I've "repented". I just made my commitment in a different way this time. Why can't he get it through his head that homosexuals are just expressing their sexuality in a different way than he does. Why should they repent? David Brunson really amazes me. I think he's a closet homosexual atheist out to discredit christianity. Nobody could really be that mixed up. > David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire He's extraordinary...for sure! Jerry Nowlin ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin