learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (07/31/88)
In article <12729@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Mark Smith writes: > If the only reason you can give for referring to someone repeatedly, > against their wishes, in a rude and impolite way that refers > to what they are, rather than what they said, that is, to their race, > religion, color, age, handicap, or sex, is that they ARE that > particular race, religion, color, age, handicap, or sex, then > you have a case of discrimination based on race, religion, color, age, > handicap or sex. It is not "their wishes" by which discrimination is determined. To invoke "their wishes" as a legal requirement would place the entire societal and legal structure hostage to previously legally undefined whim. Rude and impolite has no legal status except in some limited settings. In the reference paragraph the text "rather than what they said" is in no way applicable to the discussion at hand, discrimination. While the paragraph has some of the appearances of the general definition of discrimination it falls short of emplaced legal and moral realities by unsupportable extensions to the self service of the author. Bill Vajk (the REAL me) learn@igloo