asente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente) (03/06/84)
As you are no doubt aware, AB 1, the state gay employment rights bill, has passed the senate and the assembly and is now before Governor Deukmejian. Currently the mail the governor has been receiving on the issue has been running about 30 to 1 asking him to veto the bill; this is due primarily to massive letter writing campaigns by right-wing fundamentalists. Please write to the governor TODAY urging him to sign the bill into law. If you have been the victim of discrimination, or know someone who has, describe the situation. If you are afraid to sign your name, send the letter unsigned and explain why you are afraid to sign it. Remember, every letter is considered to represent the opinions of several thousand people who feel the same way but didn't write. Ask your friends to write, ask your family to write. The governor's address is Governor George Deukmejian State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 If you absolutely don't have the few minutes it takes to write a letter, call the governor at (916) 445-1455. But try to write, as a letter carries much more weight than a phone call. -paul asente ...!decwrl!asente
msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (03/19/84)
***
19 March 1984.
Well, at the last minute, Governor Deukmejian vetoed the
gay rights bill. I have mixed feelings about that vetoing, which
I would like to share.
On the one had, I deplore discrimination against anyone,
be they Black, Oriental, homosexual, physically-mentally-emotionally
handicapped, etc., etc. On the other hand, there is a
possibility that enactment of such leglislation would provoke
backlashes against homosexuals and create subtler forms of homophobic attack.
Comments always welcomed.
--
-- cheers,
Mike Simpson, BBN
msimpson@bbn-unix (ARPA)
{decvax,ima,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold) (03/20/84)
When we were discussing anti-discrimination laws, a gay acquaintance told
me that it seemed people would go ahead and discriminate anyway, but would
lie about their reasons. He said he'd rather people told him flat out
"I don't rent to gays"
than that they claim his credit rating wasn't good enough...or the apartment
was already rented...or he didn't have the right attitude for dealing with
customers...or whatever.
Many of the lies could be damaging to his self-esteem, or at best leave
him misinformed about the condition of the market he was trying to rent/
find a job in. If people told him the truth, he would know it was just
the other person's stupidity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a (non-doctrinaire) libertarian I found his statements reinforced my
hunches about the way the world works. It's hard to make people change
their attitudes or the results of their attitudes in a mixed market
(part free, but with a hodgepodge of regulations). The ways people find
to dodge around the regs can lead to a lot of unfortunate side effects.
This was MY reason for opposing anti-discrimination laws, even though
I don't approve of discrimination based on considerations that are
irrelevant and stupid.
I WOULD like to point out that the boycott is a legitimate technique,
both from libertarian principles and within our current laws. There are
a lot of gays. Post the names of businesses that discriminate. Don't
buy from them. Picket them (but don't block traffic, please).
If they start losing money, they'll mend their ways -- or else their too
stupid to bother with.
Oh, if it makes any difference, I am (so far) straight.
--
Barry Gold
usenet: {decvax!allegra|ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!barryg
Arpanet: barry@BNLurban@trwspp.UUCP (03/21/84)
S > I > On the one had, I deplore discrimination against anyone, M > be they Black, Oriental, homosexual, physically-mentally-emotionally P > handicapped, etc., etc. On the other hand, there is a S > possibility that enactment of such leglislation would provoke O > backlashes against homosexuals and create subtler forms of homophobic N > attack. Undoubtedly the anti-discrimination legislation which protects people's jobs from prejudices due to race, also provokes a certain amount of racist backlash (racist employers who give their employees gentle reminders about how they "had to hire them"), etc. But, assuming you feel that the legislation itself is a good idea, would you really have reservations about enacting it because of this? Besides, the Gov's expressed reason for the veto, sufficiently astonishing in light of the reported number of letters/calls he received, was that there wasn't sufficient evidence of discrimination to warrant the enactment of this legislation. Mike