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!decvax!wivax!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss,mod.motss Subject: Re: Forwarded anonymous posting Message-ID: <1117@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 23:52:34 EST Article-I.D.: bbncca.1117 Posted: Tue Nov 6 23:52:34 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Nov-84 02:23:47 EST References: <1114@bbncca.ARPA> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 20 Approved: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA Unfortunately, "principles" can not always be turned into action, let alone enforced as law. While I can see our anonymous poster's point about the almost ludicrous specificity of the Cambridge human rights ordinance, s/he must realize that all bills are the result of compromise, and that specific language is necessary if the ordinance is not to be thrown out. One would much rather assume the Golden Rule in all affairs, but alas, we cannot. Hence this ordinance. So much for principles. I am unconvinced of the claim that an ordinance which details may/may nots to the extent that Cambridge does actively contributes to discrimination. This is an objection based on aesthetics and not pragmatics. The ordinance provides a few gaping holes by which individuals may choose to continue to discriminate, but I sincerely doubt that it will be the cause of any new discriminatory behavior. What it does provide for the first time in Cambridge is a formal method of legal redress when people are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA