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