brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/09/84)
[] >As if we needed MORE evidence that Brunson was Ken Arndt in disguise. It >seems, to Mr. Brunson, that one needs to "prove" one's "legitimacy" as a >human being before one is to be "accepted" (by whom?). Blacks and other >minorities have worked hard and long to do this, and this validates them >(their hands have been stamped, apparently) as real human beings in Brunson's >eyes. This bears no relationship whatsoever to anything I have said. > But because of preconceptions that Brunson has, apparently no amount >of effort would validate homosexuals in his eyes. For the N+1th time, the >goal of social progress is NOT to validate groups of people on a case by case >basis (which is what has been REQUIRED over the years) but rather to seek the >ultimate goal that EVERYONE is entitled to equivalent treatment and rights as >human beings. For the N+2nd time: There are two parties involved in the proposed civil suit. One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual. The Bible- believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning tolerance. In his mind homosexuals are, in a sense, criminals. That is, people who have forfeited their rights by their objectionable behavior. (You are aware that thieves, for example, forfeit their rights? Or should they not be "discriminated" against either?). You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind. He WILL NOT HIRE the homosexual. That's all there is to it. Arguments concerning the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant. The only question is this: who should win the suit? Who should be vindicated and who should be condemned. There is no *nice-guy* way to handle the problem. There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about this" approach left. The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible- believer refuses to change. All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!??? For the N+2nd time: who should win the suit *AND WHY*? -- David Brunson, making the net a more *decent* place to raise a family
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/09/84)
[] >>The values of most respondents say that intolerance of those who >>commit sexual sins is a great evil. > >No, Mr. Brunson, you seem to be missing a very fundamental point. It is >not that your opponents say that intolerance of those who "commit sins" >is a great "evil". It is simply that they are not playing your game. > >You are still standing in front of the big tree with your eyes closed, >counting to 100, while all the other boys and girls have gone home to >supper. You are so caught up in your smug little game of "Sinners-n- >Saints" that you fail to realize that it is merely your own personal >hallucination. (How else to describe mumbling to invisible creatures, >babbling about perforated spooks, and the suchlike?) "game"? How about your little word game here? The SUBSTANCE of the issue, once again, is that either a homosexual, or an otherwise law-abiding citizen who discriminates against homosexuals, WILL BE PUNISHED. The moral question before us is: who should it be? When will you get tired of your cutsie little imaginings and get to the subject? Why do you insist on continuing to bore us with your purely imaginary characterizations of people who would discriminate against homosexuals? They are IRRELEVANT to the issue. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???!!? How many times do I have to say this before people will get to the subject? Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* >Let us hark back to one of your earlier scenarios: Suppose you came to >me for a job. You seemed well qualified, but during the course of our >interview it bacame obvious to me that you had these bizzare religious >inclinations. Perhaps it was because you wore some medallion, or because >of some phrase you let slip in the course of conversation. No matter. >Now, of course I would not hire you. Qualifications or no, one cannot >afford to take chances with this sort of pernicious dementia. Non- >descrimination clauses and tolerance are all well and good, but surely >one must draw the line somewhere. This sort of mental instability could >actually endanger the lives of the other employees. <29 more similar lines> >It's curious, Mr. Brunson, that you started out by defending your right >to refuse to hire someone. Why didn't you start out by defending someone >else's right to refuse to hire you? I would be interested to hear you >argue for my right to refuse to sell you my house because of your >religious hysteria. It's really in your best interest, after all. I >know that it's not really solving your problems, but at least I'm not >adding to them by letting you fall into the complacent perception that >there's nothing wrong with you. Besides, how else can you be made to >see the error of your ways? Perhaps something a little more physical? I have already stated on two occasions very clearly, very plainly, with absolutely NO MARGIN FOR MISINTERPRETATION that I have no problem WHATSOEVER with you discriminating against me. That means not selling me a house, denying me a job, firing me, refusing to do business with me. That means that I will not take you to court over it even though under present law I could. As for the "something more physical" part: that is and should remain illegal. >The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a >pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own rightousness. The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own banality. -- David Brunson, at your service
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/09/84)
In article <usfbobo.215> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes: > >Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE >TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. >THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, >Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY >WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN >AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* I'll bite. Given that the homosexual (it could also be any person, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Atheist, Bahai, heterosexual or any-other-sexual you can imagine) does not disrupt work by bringing their personal ideosyncracies into the workplace, then they should win the suit. Simple enough? The funny thing, Brunson, is that you probably have non-heterosexuals (interesting word) working for you now, or will have them working for you in the future and you won't know it. I'd also guess that there are lots of people you'd refuse to hire thinking they were gay who, in fact, are not. It's ironic that you aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of honesty. (Unless, of course, you're given to creeping and peeping around folks bedrooms at night in which case you are definitely due for a spell in the slammer.) -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (11/09/84)
> [David Brunson:] > Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE > TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. > THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, > Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY > WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN > AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* To answer your question, the person who refuses to hire homosexuals should lose, and the homosexual should win. "Should" means that, in my opinion, this is what I believe is more just. The problem is that the employer wishes to hire only people who he/she is comfortable having around, while the person looking for work wishes to have access to any job based only on their ability, not the personal preferences of the employer. I believe that it is more important for the employee to be protected from discrimination than it is for the employer to be allowed to discriminate. > I have already stated on two occasions very clearly, very plainly, with > absolutely NO MARGIN FOR MISINTERPRETATION that I have no problem WHATSOEVER > with you discriminating against me. That means not selling me a house, denying > me a job, firing me, refusing to do business with me. That means that I will > not take you to court over it even though under present law I could. Ok, so you disagree with me.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/10/84)
[] It occured to me that the following paragraph will be misunderstood. I will clarify it in advance: >[Me]: >You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind. He WILL NOT >HIRE the homosexual. That's all there is to it. Arguments concerning >the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant. The only >question is this: who should win the suit? Who should be vindicated >and who should be condemned. There is no *nice-guy* way to >handle the problem. There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about >this" approach left. The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible- >believer refuses to change. All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT. >DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!??? The fact that it is a Bible believer who is the discriminator is irrelevant. When I say "Bible believer" most people will assume that I mean a Jerry-Falwell- Christian-Fundamentalist-Inerrancy-of-the-Scriptures-Prayer-in-Public-Schools- Let's-Return-This-to-a-Christian-America-and-Beat-up-all-the-Gays-Blacks-and- Jews-and-Tell-Little-Children-that-they-Will-Die-And-Go-To-Hell-Unless-They- Accept-Jesus-Into-Their-Hearts-And-Wear-A-Cross-Around-Their-Necks-And- Picket-Abortion-Clinics-And-Vote-For-Ronald-Reagan kind of guy. Make him a Jew or Moslem or Atheist or whatever you like. Also the statement "Arguments concerning the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant" is not correct. What I meant to say is that the dis- criminator's motives are irrelevant. That is, when you ask him the question, "Oh come now, let's talk about this. Why do you want to discriminate against this harmless homosexual?", anything that he says to defend his position is independent of the moral question before the house, which is, once again, >For the N+2nd time: who should win the suit *AND WHY*? -- David Brunson Peace Through Strength
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (11/13/84)
> > But because of preconceptions that Brunson has, apparently no amount > >of effort would validate homosexuals in his eyes. For the N+1th time, the > >goal of social progress is NOT to validate groups of people on a case by case > >basis (which is what has been REQUIRED over the years) but rather to seek the > >ultimate goal that EVERYONE is entitled to equivalent treatment and rights as > >human beings. > > For the N+2nd time: There are two parties involved in the proposed civil > suit. One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who > adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual. The Bible- > believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning > tolerance. In his mind homosexuals are, in a sense, criminals. That is, > people who have forfeited their rights by their objectionable behavior. > (You are aware that thieves, for example, forfeit their rights? Or should > they not be "discriminated" against either?). Some person may refuse to accept the arguments of society that smashing the windows of other peoples' cars is not a good thing to do. In their mind, the people who attempt to stop them from doing this are infringing on their rights. My response? Tough. Just because Bible-believing citizens don't like gays doesn't mean we have to honor their views. Just because they think gays are, in a sense, criminals doesn't mean they are criminals. > You will not persuade the Bible believer to change his mind. He WILL NOT > HIRE the homosexual. That's all there is to it. Arguments concerning > the rightness or wrongness of his position are now irrelevant. The only > question is this: who should win the suit? Who should be vindicated > and who should be condemned. There is no *nice-guy* way to > handle the problem. There is no "Oh come now, let's be reasonable about > this" approach left. The homosexual refuses to change and the Bible- > believer refuses to change. All other considerations are now IRRELEVANT. > DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????!!!??? > > For the N+2nd time: who should win the suit *AND WHY*? Well, one thing I understand is that if you don't have anything worthwhile to say, saying it at 150dB doesn't make it any more worthwhile. Fine. Nobody will change your mind. I hope you realize that by abjuring reason, you've probably blown your chances of changing anybody else's mind. Indeed, there is no "nice-guy" way to handle the problem. Society either has to be nasty to the "Bible believers" or to gays. I think it should be nasty to the "Bible believers". Their actions directly and provably harm gays. The gays' actions can only be shown to harm other people by swallowing the "Bible believers'" anti-gay line hook, line, and sinker. I operate - and most of the people arguing the pro-gay position operate - on the principle that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm other people is *immoral*. That's right, immoral. We don't pussyfoot around here; I'll pull out the tough expletives and use them here. Therefore the gay should win the suit, and the "Bible believer" should be condemned. OK. You probably dislike this conclusion. Either 1) you have a *purely* rational argument against it ("gays are doing themselves and others harm because their action is a sin" don't cut it) - in which case, please present it or 2) you dislike it because it disagrees with a strongly- but not rationally-held conviction of yours - in which case, you are probably turning more people against you than you are convincing to support you, and you are making a public nuisance out of yourself, so stop it. > > David Brunson, making the net a more *decent* place to raise a family Bullshit. In your ideal world, I'd seriously consider getting my tubes cut. I'd not want to subject any child of mine to a world in which people who disagreed with their values, without being demonstratably and objectively harmed by the consequences of those values, could enforce their judgements against their ways of life. Gays *are* demonstratably and objectively harmed by employment discrimination - it's hard to live without eating, and it's hard to eat without being able to afford your food, and it's hard to be able to afford food without getting paid by an employer. If your intent is to disrupt net.motss, you've certainly succeeded. If your intent is to make people aware of your plight, and sympathetic to it, I suspect you've failed. If that is your intent, please don't annoy us with further postings; it might prompt us to work harder against political candidates who support your view, and leave you more isolated than before. (Hmmm... maybe discrimination against what you call "Bible believers" is good for them, as they're hurting themselves by their sins against humanity...) Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
greenber@acf4.UUCP (11/13/84)
<> This is the first time I'm posting to net.motss, so if I break some protocol, tell me gently...ok??? Now I've been watching what's been going on here for a while and, frankly, Brunson has a point. (Alright, I'll put my asbetos suit on!). Now, I don't say I agree with him...I just say he has a point. And here is a true to life situation. You tell me what you would have done: I had a VERY nice contract with a fellow out in New Jersey (on the other side of the river, I've been told!). He required one full-time contract programmer at his site for about three months. So I showed him the resume of a very good programmer who has worked for me in the past, and he said: "Great!! This guy is just what I need...when can he start?". So my programmer was hired to go out there and do the job. He was out there for about three hours when the client calls up and starts complaining loudly that he "doesn't need no fruits" working for him. So I asked him "Why...what's wrong....did he do something, ah, that you're uncomfortable with?". The client merely said that no matter how qualified the guy was, he didn't want any homosexuals working for him. Although he didn't put it quite so politely. Now the programmer, Ralph, happens to be overtly gay, and perhaps a bit flamboyant about it, but he does excellent work. I had a choice: Push a point and lose $9,000 profit, or just tell poor Ralph that he has to go BECAUSE HE IS GAY. Which would you do?? I choose to pull Ralph off the assignment. I have no problem with the fact the Ralph is gay (although I'm not --- but some of my friends are :-) ). But I have a problem with losing $9,000. Now, before you flame at me: Forget your sexual orientation. What would you have done. Been noble and lost the money? And was that guy wrong?? It was his money, and he does have the right not to have persons working for him that would cause problems FOR ANY REASON with him. I don't like the client, but I feel that he does have that right. And if he told me that he wanted me to pull the new person off the project (just for a laugh: Toni is a qualified programmer -- and a lesbian!!) for any reason including, but not limited to, that he didn't like the color of her eyes, I'd probably pull Toni off the account, too. Nobility is nice, but it doesn't pay the rent. Now if you want to flame at me, please do it by mail. Then I'll summarize as needed. Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
richard@apple.UUCP (Richard Johnson) (11/14/84)
[lick me until I disappear]
Naw, Brunson isn't Arndt in disguise. Arndt exhibited some degree of
intelligence on occasion. He read journals and periodicals and impressed
some of us with his facts and made others of us wonder why he reads so much
about homosexuals. Brunson would seem to think the bible (I refuse to
capitalize the word) is the ONLY book around. And quite frankly, Brunson
doesn't sound the least bit intelligent. I hope that he isn't raising a family,
'cause the world doesn't need more bible-thumping morons. So, David dear, if
you REALLY want to make the net a decent place to raise a family, don't litter
it with your prehistoric ideas and teachings. But DO teach your kids to read.
After all, your book clearly would like you to love all your fellow mankind,
regardless of our differences. You, it would seem, haven't read that part yet.
Richard Johnson [nsc|mtxinu|voder]!apple!richard
richard%apple@csnet-relay
"tired of standing round throwing punches at the moon"sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/14/84)
Radix malorum est cupiditas.
One wonders what Greenberg would have done if the same client had
called regarding a contract programmer who was black. Yep, $9000
is a *lot* of money, and I REALLY NEED a new {_______}. Hey, you
can't blame me out there, can you? What would you do, anyway?
Appealing to the lowest common denominator is one of the oldest
foibles, but that doesn't make it honorable.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPArrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/14/84)
Forgive me for being blunt, but what if the propsepective employee were Jewish, insisted on wearing a yamulkah to work, & on taking time off for Jewish holidays (say, as sick time)? Or if the prospec- tive employee were black? Would you have entertained the argument you outlined in your posting at all? Or would you rather have immedi- ately thought that the ONLY valid issue was discrimination? Regards, Ron Rizzo
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/14/84)
>> For the N+2nd time: There are two parties involved in the proposed civil >> suit. One is a homosexual, the other is a Bible-believing citizen who >> adamantly refuses to recognize the "rights" of the homosexual. The Bible- >> believing citizen will refuse to accept your arguments concerning >> tolerance... > > Just because Bible-believing citizens >don't like gays doesn't mean we have to honor their views. > > [ other similar phrases by both authors ] I made this point in an earlier article, and the absence of such phrases made be believe I had been successful. I suppose it is more likely that my message didn't get out. I do not know of any Christian who does not believe in the Bible. However, many Christians I know do not consider homosexuals criminals, do not believe in disciminating against them, do not believe they are sick and need to be reformed. Some Christians I know are gay, and are comfortable with their God. The fact is that very few generalizations can be made about believers in the Bible. There are very peaceful and quiet believers and there are agressive (even violent) and missionary believers, and everything in between (and beyond) these endpoints. The problem with making (and accepting) such generalizations is that you have to then invent some word or phrase which describes the Christians not covered by Dave Brunson's (or whoever's) Bible beliefs. Try and convince the gay congregations (there are several in this country) that they are not Bible believers, and that they should be called "Bible-nonbelievers". Good luck. Until you do, please do not use such phrases. Ken Arnold
greenber@acf4.UUCP (11/15/84)
<> Steve Dyer says: > One wonders what Greenberg would have done if the same client had > called regarding a contract programmer who was black. Yep, $9000 > is a *lot* of money, and I REALLY NEED a new {_______}. Hey, you > can't blame me out there, can you? What would you do, anyway? > > Appealing to the lowest common denominator is one of the oldest > foibles, but that doesn't make it honorable. There is no need to wonder what I'd do: I thought I'd made that obvious. The question is: What would YOU do, Steve? If a client calls me up and says I don't want your programmer here because he/she/it is a {______}, I'll have to go with the client. They bought that right, whether it is moral or not. I have only one choice: go with the client and screw the he/she/it or fight the client, lose, and neither the he/she/it or I profit. I never said it was honorable, just pragmatic. Lofty ideals are wonderful. But, as I stated, they do not pay the rent. I've lost too many "good" jobs (because I'm Jewish) not to hate this kind of discrimination. But doesn't the client have the right to say "Not in my house you don't!!"??? But lets get away from the theory and get into the dirt: Steve Dyer, what would you do??? And lets hear the rationale behind it. And then tell us where you would replace those expected, possible already spent, lost funds due to YOUR high ideals (or am I presupposing that you'll do the "noble" thing, and tell the client something meaningful and relevant?). I'm waiting Steve...... Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/16/84)
>There is no need to wonder what I'd do: I thought I'd made that obvious. >The question is: What would YOU do, Steve? If a client calls me up and >says I don't want your programmer here because he/she/it is a {______}, >I'll have to go with the client. They bought that right, whether it is >moral or not. I have only one choice: go with the client and screw the >he/she/it or fight the client, lose, and neither the he/she/it or I profit. >I never said it was honorable, just pragmatic. >Lofty ideals are wonderful. But, as I stated, they do not pay the rent. >I've lost too many "good" jobs (because I'm Jewish) not to hate this kind of >discrimination. But doesn't the client have the right to say "Not in my >house you don't!!"??? >But lets get away from the theory and get into the dirt: Steve Dyer, what >would you do??? >And lets hear the rationale behind it. And then tell us where you would >replace those expected, possible already spent, lost funds due to YOUR high >ideals (or am I presupposing that you'll do the "noble" thing, and tell >the client something meaningful and relevant?). >I'm waiting Steve...... >Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <---- No one is saying that life isn't full of hard choices, and that often one trades evil for evil in just trying to get by. But, "What would YOU do?" is not an answer to the question of what it takes to live a moral life. Rather, it is a question recognizing that you have failed in this instance. "What would YOU do" is the moral equivalent of the artist saying to the critic, "So YOU do better!" It is, at best, irrelevant to any discussion of ethics. I have never been in the situation you describe, though I have long experimented with "thought experiments" about how I would react to similar discrimination. I have agonized over the possible repercussions of coming forth in net.motss and mod.motss, and what to do in the face of any such antagonism. If I had been the person offering the programmer to the client, and the client refused because the programmer was whatever-the-offensive-group-you- may-have, I'd say "screw the money and the client." The client may have the "right" (in a perfect laissez-faire world) to hire whomever he wishes, but he doesn't have the "right" to demand my services, "purchase" my conscience, and cause me to compromise my basic principles. I would withdraw my offer along with the programmer, unless the programmer wished to fight it, and not do business with that client again. The client can then try to get his job completed with the help of some other body shop. One could imagine all sorts of extenuating circumstances surrounding a decision to the contrary. Some of them may be for entirely legitimate reasons: "I'm about to go broke, my kids will starve, my wife will leave me, and my mother is sick" or something similar. Some of them aren't quite so lovable: "I think that $9000 is more important than my principles. I mean, I can carry a $9000 loss, but money is money and business is business." These are hard issues, and only the person faced with the choices can really be said to have faced them for certain. Everything else is, as you say, "theory." I can say one thing for certain: in my case, were I confronted with the situation you describe, and I found for whatever reason that I was unable to follow the "noble" (what quaint quotation marks) path, I would have agonized over it long and loud. I'd be unable to sleep, my stomach would rebel, and my voice would croak as I had to tell the programmer that s/he wasn't suitable because of the client's prejudice. And I would be ashamed of myself, despite my own valid rationalizations. I would never mention it in public, and I would NEVER use that shame as a way to justify the actions of the client, that one who demonstrated my own shortcomings as a person. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/16/84)
> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) > Subject: re: "Gay Rights" > Message-ID: <215@usfbobo.UUCP> > Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 22:59:09 EST > Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!: THERE ARE > TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT. ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL. > THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew, > Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS. ONE PARTY > WILL WIN THE SUIT. THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT. *WHO SHOULD WIN > AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?* I don't think you have the right to get so upset about people who assumed that you were posing a religious question -- at the very least, your original posting (remember, the one with the patronizing references to Jews, and how you would derive spiritual brownie points by hiring one) was so poorly worded that most respondents felt you were trying to set your religious beliefs above the law. Now you say, though, that your claim is simply that gays ought not be a protected class under the law. You seem to be going a step further, and implying that while (some classes of) disrimination are wrong, the law should not provide any protection at all. Neither of those propositions is inherently indefensible; indeed, many libertarians advocate the latter as an all-encompassing general policy. As a card-carrying liberal (I'm a member of the ACLU...), I strongly disagree. I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well. In practice (and probably as a matter of principle), explicit legal protection is extended only to those groups where there exists a proven history of massive discrimination -- i.e., against blacks, religious minorities, women, etc. Given the widespread homophobia in our society, and many explicit calls that gays should not be hired, I therefore claim that sexual preference should be a protected class under the applicable civil rights statutes. --Steve Bellovin P.S. Given that the premise of the argument is now apparently political instead of religious, I've cross-posted this to net.politics. Future discussion should probably not take place in net.religion....
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/16/84)
> Naw, Brunson isn't Arndt in disguise. Arndt exhibited some degree of > intelligence on occasion. He read journals and periodicals and impressed > some of us with his facts and made others of us wonder why he reads so much > about homosexuals. If quoting random statistics and journals is to be thought of as evidence of intelligence (or as evidence of having something reasonable to say), then it's no wonder certain people get elected to high office. Arndt may be "flashy" in that he shows people the TRAPPINGS of intelligence and reason, but if that alone gives the impression that he really IS intelligent or that he actually has something important to say, then perhaps he's well suited to go into advertising (or more likely propaganda). Don't let people like Arndt or Brunson or Bickford snow you. Look what the Germans got when they fell for it. Look what we're getting. If they produce random quotings of "authorities" instead of facts, if they can't justify their own requests for justification by others, if the sum and total of all their logic is a ridiculous emotional appeal designed to make you believe notions that have no logical basis in fact, then just ignore them. Or else point them out for what they are. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
greenber@acf4.UUCP (11/16/84)
Steve Dyer=> > No one is saying that life isn't full of hard choices, and that often > one trades evil for evil in just trying to get by. But, "What would YOU do?" > is not an answer to the question of what it takes to live a moral life. > Rather, it is a question recognizing that you have failed in this instance. But Steve, this had nothing to do with "what it takes to lead a moral life". This was an instance where I made a choice, which you rejected (for whatever reason). I asked you what you'd do, not whether you feel if this right or not. I personally detested my decision. But I don't feel that I "failed in this instance". This instance, as it were, was a business instance, the sucess of which can be measured in dollars and cents. I can not be responsible for my employees sexual preference any more than I can be responsible for the clients. Having to choose between one and the other, I choose the one that would benefit me, not detriment me. > "What would YOU do" is the moral equivalent of the artist saying to the > critic, "So YOU do better!" It is, at best, irrelevant to any discussion > of ethics. I have never been in the situation you describe...... No it isn't. It is the basis of ethics: 'what would you do?' allows us to see and to examine the petty foibles of our fellow man, and thusly to exmaine our own. But here in this net group we have a lot of home/hetero sexuals all discussing the pros and cons of todays attitudes (whatever they are) and, for the most part, in theory. I have presented a case, and what one person did with that case. It is not theory, but is real. The fact that you have never experienced a similiar situation may make only YOUR opinion irrelevant. I tend not to think that way, but instead have asked: "What would you do?", which after commenting on it's irrelevancy, you then continue: > If I had been the person offering the programmer to the client, and the > client refused because the programmer was whatever-the-offensive-group-you- > may-have, I'd say "screw the money and the client." And that is how a business closes down. The first and foremost thing, in my opinion, is to get your priorities in order. Are you putting the "so-called" deviant beliefs of the programmer (he refuses to wear a tie to the office, or to go out with girls :-)) ahead of both the needs and wished of the client as well as your own. What gave this singular individual with these not-so-ordinary beliefs the ability to have "more" rights than the client. They both have strange attitudes, but you side with the programmer, at your own detriment. I side with that which is to my benefit. A pity, but nobody from "that" community has offered to pay my rent lately. > The client may have the "right" (in a perfect laissez-faire world) to hire > whomever he wishes, but he doesn't have the "right" to demand my services, > "purchase" my conscience, and cause me to compromise my basic principles. But the gay programmer does?? Simply because he is gay I should protect his rights at my own cost?? Give me a break....... > I can say one thing for certain: in my case, were I confronted with the > situation you describe, and I found for whatever reason that I was > unable to follow the "noble" (what quaint quotation marks) path, I > would have agonized over it long and loud. I did. > I would never mention it in public, and I would NEVER use that shame as > a way to justify the actions of the client, that one who demonstrated > my own shortcomings as a person. Golly, Steve, when did you get to judge whether this is in fact a shortcoming. Are you stating opinion here, or is this Gospel. And, although I'm not particularlly proud of my decision, I still will quote from my favorite book (_Atlas Shrugged_): " I swear by my life, and by my love for it, that I shall not live my life for the sake of any other man, nor ask any other man to live his life for my sake " - John Galt Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/17/84)
Re: The "what would you do" discussion.
The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is so that
people like Mr. Greenberg are not forced to make those
kinds of decisions. Its a tragedy of the commons all
over again. Even when the majority desires equal rights for
gays, a minority can force them not to provide them by
patronizing those vendors who don't provide equal rights, unless
the law binds them otherwise.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/18/84)
Yes, I thought I heard dem ol' bones of Ayn Rand rattling in Greenberg's
arguments even before he admitted it.
He's got it all wrong, of course, thinking that I'm putting the "rights
of the programmer" ahead of my own, and that I would end up poorer because
of it. Let me just say that I would prefer monetary bankruptcy than
ethical and spiritual bankruptcy. If I see a potential for injustice done
where I would share complicity in the act, it is my duty to make sure that
I avoid it. That means not doing business with admitted bigots where their
bigotry would attempt to influence my standard operating procedures.
That means withdrawing my offer to any clients who would attempt to
have me discriminate among my employees according to their whims.
Greenberg misunderstands: I, myself, am far better off by refusing to take
the money and reassign the programmer. The fact that the programmer
benefits, too, is simply a side-effect. My principles are more important
to me than the damn $9000 or whatever. The simple fact is that we both
have principles: it is merely that for Greenberg, here, it is materialism:
the almighty buck, the continued existence of a business.
I would like to mention that this discussion is sufficiently far-afield
of the topics of net.motss that it really should be moved, perhaps to
net.politics or net.philosophy, two arenas where the theory of Objectivism
is better battled over.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAbrunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/18/84)
[] reply to comments from Steve Bellovin We finally seem to be making some progress here. First let me take care of some small business which I hope won't start another round of tangents. >P.S. Given that the premise of the argument is now apparently political >instead of religious, I've cross-posted this to net.politics. Future >discussion should probably not take place in net.religion.... I quote the stated purpose of net.religion: "net.religion: Religious, ethical, and moral implications of actions." By this statement the "Gay Rights" discussion is one of the very *few* appropriate discussions happening in net.religion. I am asking a moral question. A question of right and wrong. I don't know how I could have worded the question any more clearly and I don't see why I am still being misunderstood. A question of judgement has been proposed. I am asking people to comment on the "ethical and moral implications" of this judgement. >I don't think you have the right to get so upset about people who assumed >that you were posing a religious question -- at the very least, your original >posting (remember, the one with the patronizing references to Jews, and how >you would derive spiritual brownie points by hiring one) was so poorly >worded that most respondents felt you were trying to set your religious >beliefs above the law. Now you say, though, that your claim is simply that >gays ought not be a protected class under the law. You seem to be going >a step further, and implying that while (some classes of) disrimination are >wrong, the law should not provide any protection at all. As far as I know my only major error so far was an early attempt at arguing that homosexuals are invalid as a minority because they can change their behavior. Many people correctly jumped on that. I don't care to defend my "poorly worded" posting because that could easily get us off the subject. Let's just drop it. As for the last sentence, you have misunderstood my meaning. But that is a tangential point and you show promising signs of addressing the important issue in the next paragraph: >As a card-carrying liberal (I'm a member of the ACLU...), I strongly >disagree. I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal >to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job >is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well. First of all, let me congratulate you on your membership in the ACLU. They do a lot of good things. Let me further congratulate you on your second sentence: "any refusal to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job is *morally* wrong..." You just said the magic words! Now, can you explain yourself here in more depth? Why is it *morally* wrong to refuse to hire someone? Please understand that I am not being obtuse. The statement may seem perfectly obvious to you, but it is entirely alien to me. I can easily imagine scenarios where it *could* be morally wrong to refuse hiring, but to make hiring a universal moral principle strikes me as an odd proposal. It seems to me that you must be making some assumption about how the world works which I don't share and that you take for granted. If you could explain your statement in more depth maybe we could find it. A general note: let's all be careful to stick to the issue. We are trying to learn about the code of morality that proponents of "Gay Rights" initiatives subscribe to. -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education.
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/18/84)
re: >From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) >Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss >Subject: re: "Gay Rights" >Message-ID: <238@rlgvax.UUCP> > Indeed, >there is no "nice-guy" way to handle the problem. Society either has to >be nasty to the "Bible believers" or to gays. I think it should be nasty >to the "Bible believers". Their actions directly and provably harm gays. >The gays' actions can only be shown to harm other people by swallowing >the "Bible believers'" anti-gay line hook, line, and sinker. I operate - >and most of the people arguing the pro-gay position operate - on the principle >that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm >other people is *immoral*. That's right, immoral. We don't pussyfoot around >here; I'll pull out the tough expletives and use them here. Therefore the >gay should win the suit, and the "Bible believer" should be condemned. Alright! Now we're getting somewhere! People are *finally* beginning to speak the right language! So now we have "the principle that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm other people is *immoral*." Without commenting on the validity of this as a universal principle, I don't see how I am violating it by refusing you a job. By refusing you a job, I am simply not allowing you in my *community*, or sphere of influence. You are free to go somewhere else and do as you please. > Gays *are* demonstratably and objectively harmed >by employment discrimination - it's hard to live without eating, and it's >hard to eat without being able to afford your food, and it's hard to be >able to afford food without getting paid by an employer. There seems to be some unstated moral principle behind this statement. You seem to be saying that an employer is morally *obligated* to hire you. Why? What is your universal moral principle in this case? -- David Brunson ... better understanding through higher education.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/18/84)
=================
... I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal
to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job
is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well.
...
--Steve Bellovin
=================
At first sight, this claim seems obviously correct, but when you look
a little deeper, you find that it is hard to determine what are the
bounds on "ability to do the job". If the presence of a heavy smoker
(good at the job) impairs the ability of a co-worker to do the job,
is this grounds for at least separating the two, or perhaps to not
hire the smoker? The overall efficiency of the company may be reduced
as compared to hiring an equally able non-smoker. Now carry this over
to psychological (and many would say unrealistic) ill effects caused
by prejudice. Where do you draw the line? If someone gets very
irritated every time he sees a white person working nearby, and therefore
cannot function properly in the presence of a white co-worker, is this
reason for the firm not to hire whites? If someone gets so turned-on
by a pretty woman that he can't work properly, is it a reason not to
hire women? Somewhere, there is a boundary between reasonable and
ridiculous, but simple "ability to do the job" cannot be the place.
I don't know where I would put it, but for me it would probably be
reasonable not to hire a particuarly abrasive person for work in
a close-knit team, or a heavy smoker for work in a close environment.
But then, I don't worry about people's sexual preferences or skin
colour, but I do worry about getting upset by smoke or interpersonal
agression.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtscott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/25/84)
In article <> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >================= >... I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal >to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job >is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well. >... > > --Steve Bellovin >================= >At first sight, this claim seems obviously correct, but when you look >a little deeper, you find that it is hard to determine what are the >bounds on "ability to do the job". If the presence of a heavy smoker >(good at the job) impairs the ability of a co-worker to do the job, >is this grounds for at least separating the two, or perhaps to not >hire the smoker? The overall efficiency of the company may be reduced >as compared to hiring an equally able non-smoker. Now carry this over >to psychological (and many would say unrealistic) ill effects caused >by prejudice. Where do you draw the line? It doesn't seem at all obvious to me. Lets cure the disease and not the symptom. I agree that people have been unfairly discriminated against for whatever reason, but that doesn't give us the right to discriminate against employers. Why should someone have to hire someone they don't like? For whatever reason. Golly, Why would you want to go to work for someone who didn't like you? There are generally two ways to get people to do things. You can force them, in which case they don't to a good job and you waste a lot of energy policeing them, or you can make whatevery it is you want them to do economical, and make it uneconomical for them not to. So now the question becomes: How do we make it uneconomical to descriminate on the basis of sex, creed, religion, ...? Not just employers, but everyone. This is a much more challenging problem. Primarily because it already is uneconomical! (anyone who blindly descriminates for whatever reasons may be missing a good thing, if they spend the time to get rid of the person while a competitor does not then they will have a higher overhead, etc) The problem is that it is not uneconomical enough, or at least the social perception of it isn't there. The problem is that the society at large agrees with the sterotypes behind the discrimination. To fix anything else will only obscure the real problem and make things worse in the long run. The law you think should "probably" exist does in various forms and it is one of the reasons the original problem still exists. Get it? Scott Bryan
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (11/27/84)
> Golly, Why would you want to go to work for someone who didn't like you?
For almost exactly the same reasons you'd go to work for someone who
likes you.
--
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA