sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (04/01/85)
[First, much of this discussion is marginally related to net.motss. Followups outside the scope of net.motss should be placed in net.misc. I've left most of the context in for readers of net.misc] >>= Me >=Tim >> 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. Also, we aren't discussing morality here either. People have the right to choose those who share their apartments or whom they call friends. Now, the grounds for exercising that right may be judged as moral or immoral, but that doesn't diminish the basic right to free association in private matters. 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. Since you and Evelyn brought it up, what *are* legitimate criteria for choosing friends and roommates and which are illegitimate? Why is it OK to advertise for a vegetarian, but not for another gay person? How about "Woman seeks same to share sunny 2br apt..." What an egregious offense, cutting off 1/2 the human race! Why, I know many post-Tootsie men who would doubtlessly be wonderful roommates for women. How bigoted! How unfair! >> There is nothing illegal about an individual making private decisions >> about whom they wish to live with or associate with. Some of those >> might be repugnant to some (discrimination based on race or religion), >> others morally neutral. 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. > > More meaningless yow-yow arguments. You are probably right concerning the > legalities involved, unfortunately. But if asking the government to forbid > prejudicial discrimination by individuals is 1984-style, then I suppose Paul > loved homosexuals, the Russians haven't lost anyone in their space program, > and little puppies have wombats for their mothers. > 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. >> To belabor the >> obvious, I am not addressing discrimination by public and private >> *institutions*, nor the moral illegitimacy of such discrimination. > > Why do you feel that something which is morally wrong for an institution can > be morally right for an individual? To me that is prima facie absurd. > I'm not discussing morals, I'm discussing basic human rights, something institutions don't possess. See above. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA