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)