Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Down to Brass Tacks
Message-ID: <11605@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 17:30:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11605
Posted: Mon Jul 15 17:30:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 08:36:57 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 76


	I have been following the exchange between Mr. Samet and Mr. 
Rosen for a couple of months now.  I fail to see the relevance of either
gentleman's arguments to the way people are going to act in the real
world.  Those gay people who remain celibate because of the Torah's
prohibition of homosexual acts are not suddenly going to feel free to
engage in homosex because Mr. Rosen says that prohibition is without
merit.  Those people who practice homosexuality are not going to stop
because Mr. Samet has revealed to them that they are violating the
Torah -- they know that already.

	Conversely, those Jews who base their faith on the Revelation
at Sinai are not going to change their beliefs, no matter how much Mr.
Rosen demonstrates that these beliefs are illiberal and out of tune
with modern American attitudes of tolerance.  Once a Jew starts to
(chas v'sholom) "judge the Torah" by some other standard, that standard
is his law, that standard replaces the Bible for him, that standard is
what governs his conduct.  Many movements within Judaism have "judged
the Torah" and found it not up to some standard or another.  Mr. Rosen
is entitled to believe what he wants.

	The fact is that Orthodox Jews have not been forming kangaroo
Sanhedrins to try, condemn and execute gay people.  Did you hear of any
Orthodox Jews among the cops at the Stonewall?  Are there Chassidic
f*g-bashers?  Are Talmudists in black hats burning down gay bars on
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware?  Of course not.  

	The real conflict in America today between the Orthodox and the
gay population has come over proposed "gay rights" laws.  THIS is the
topic we should be discussing in this news group, not the potential
danger to gays from a revived theocracy when Messiah comes.

	America has always had a free market.  You live where you want,
you work where you want.  If a Jew buys the apartment building, you can
move out.  If a homosexual is appointed as your boss, you can quit.  
In Russia, or in the U.S. Army, you live and work where you're told,
and you can't move or quit without permission.  

	The same rule used to hold for the landlord and the employer.
As recently as 1966, Californians voted overwhelmingly for "Proposition
14," which upheld the right of any person offering real estate for sale
or rental to refuse to sell or rent such property to anyone whom the
offeror, in his absolute discretion, chose to refuse.  (This particular
amendment to the State constitution didn't last long in the courts.)
What happened is that the American people and their leaders saw that
the free market led to some groups of people being concentrated in 
ghettos, in slums, in really lousy housing.  Employment discrimination
led to some groups of people holding the most menial, dirtiest, lowest-
paying jobs, where they could get jobs at all.  Not only that, these
groups were groups protected by the U. S. Constitution -- races, religions.

	So the American people made an EXCEPTION to the free market in
order to help get whole groups of people out of residential and employment
ghettos.  This EXCEPTION puts the landlord or employer in America in the
same position as the tenant or worker in Russia or the Army -- he is FORCED
to house or employ someone against his will.  

	I support this exception to the free market policy.  But each time
some new group wants to force people to house or hire its members, I say 
that there is a heavy burden on that group to justify making another 
exception to the tradition American "willing-buyer/willing-seller" rule.
Are group members living in slums comparable to the old-law tenements
where Jews lived in 1920 New York, or the rat-infested slums where Black
people live in Baltimore today?  Are they shining shoes, or scrubbing
floors, or washing dishes, or pushing pushcarts for a living?  Or can
they find a decent home and a high-paying job without FORCING Mr. Samet
to do business with them?  

	Remember, no "right" to force someone to do business with you exists 
at common law.  Such rights are creatures of statute, and do not come into
existence until a statute creating them is enacted.  So opposing such a
statute violates no man's rights.  The question for net.religion.jewish
is whether Jews should support or oppose "gay rights" laws.  

				-- Matt Rosenblatt
				(matt@amsaa.ARPA)