Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site trwspp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!urban
From: urban@trwspp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Attention Californians
Message-ID: <354@trwspp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Mar-84 11:41:27 EST
Article-I.D.: trwspp.354
Posted: Wed Mar 21 11:41:27 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Mar-84 08:12:53 EST
References: <6067@decwrl.UUCP> <630@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: T R W, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 22

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