harmon_c@h-sc1.UUCP (david harmon) (04/02/85)
> >> What *IS* true in the context of this discussion > >> is that a personal characteristic such as sexual orientation is as > >> legitimate a discriminant when making a housing choice as vegetarianism, > >> gender, smoking, keeping kosher, liking loud music, or even (gasp) religion, > >> if one cared enough about it. > > > > Since those are not equally legitimate, the sentence is meaningless. Let me > > spell it out for you: If someone said "White roomates only need apply", or > > "Bisexual roommates only need apply", or "Thelemite roommates only need > > apply", I would consider that person a fool and a bigot, despite the fact > > that I am a white bisexual Thelemite. Anyone who gets offended by a > > roommate's religion, color, or sexual preference is an asshole, and has no > > moral right to discriminate based on his bigotry. > > > > Sorry, Tim. I don't agree with you. First, we aren't discussing what > you or I might feel about an individual who chooses any arbitrary > criterion to choose among all available roommates. > We're not talking about being "offended" by a roommate's {whatever}. > We're talking about placing an ad detailing what they're looking for > in a roommate. > >> .... I am thankful, however, that we don't have > >> the government that Tim thinks we have, where individual "right > >> thinking" and "right behavior" are legislated. > > > Sorry, your response doesn't make much sense to me. I've obviously > missed your point. The US government has never proscribed private > discriminatory behavior, although it has steadily narrowed the > interpretation of what constitues "private" versus "public" behavior. > Thankfully, the courts haven't yet crept into the decision of who gets > to share your bathroon, not to mention your bed. In order to protect > my own individual rights, I find myself arguing for the right of people > whom I don't agree with. If I want to live with another gay person, > I will do so, thank you very much, and please keep your nose out of > my business. Whoa. I suspect that both of you are moving steadily further off track from the original context of this discussion. The original articles on Coming Out in the Office did not speak of restricting roomates to gays, but merely of specifying one's own sexuality in the ad. The object was not specifically to restrict respondents to gays, but to repulse those people who would be auto- matically rejecting the situation (the ad-poster!) anyway, and to repulse them before they get in hearing range. Even as a newcomer to the scene, I quite understand why the original writer did not want his feelings repeatedly tramped by a series of ignorant clods who spell "homosexual" F-U-N-N-Y-U-N-C-L-E. Incidentally, I feel that the corporation had NO grounds for keeping him from stating that he is gay. To imply that they did reeks of suppression, because it is a valid personal characteristic, which has nothing to do with his relation to the company. By the way, I also would not support restricting a roomate opening to gays. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with re- stricting the opening to those who can tolerate gays, any more than if I were a (*gasp* *choke*) smoker, I would restrict the opening to those who would tolerate my smoke, cigarette butts, etc. Dave Harmon harmon_c@h-sc1.arpa harvard!h-sc1!harmon_c.arpa