Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson
From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <215@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 22:59:09 EST
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.215
Posted: Thu Nov  8 22:59:09 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 06:49:15 EST
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 72
Xref: godot net.religion:2231 net.motss:871

[]

>>The values of most respondents say that intolerance of those who
>>commit sexual sins is a great evil.
>
>No, Mr. Brunson, you seem to be missing a very fundamental point.  It is
>not that your opponents say that intolerance of those who "commit sins"
>is a great "evil".  It is simply that they are not playing your game.
>
>You are still standing in front of the big tree with your eyes closed,
>counting to 100, while all the other boys and girls have gone home to
>supper.  You are so caught up in your smug little game of "Sinners-n-
>Saints" that you fail to realize that it is merely your own personal
>hallucination.  (How else to describe mumbling to invisible creatures,
>babbling about perforated spooks, and the suchlike?)

"game"?  How about your little word game here?  The SUBSTANCE of the issue,
once again, is that either a homosexual, or an otherwise law-abiding
citizen who discriminates against homosexuals, WILL BE PUNISHED.  The
moral question before us is:  who should it be?

When will you get tired of your cutsie little imaginings and get to
the subject?  Why do you insist on continuing to bore us with your
purely imaginary characterizations of people who would discriminate
against homosexuals?  They are IRRELEVANT to the issue.  DO YOU
UNDERSTAND???!!?  How many times do I have to say this before people
will get to the subject?

Once again, ONCE AGAIN, **ONCE AGAIN!**!@$%!!:  THERE ARE
TWO PARTIES INVOLVED IN A PROPOSED LAWSUIT.  ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL.
THE OTHER IS A PERSON (it could be ANY person, Christian, Jew,
Moslem, Atheist, Bahai) WHO REFUSES TO HIRE HOMOSEXUALS.  ONE PARTY
WILL WIN THE SUIT.  THE OTHER WILL LOSE THE SUIT.  *WHO SHOULD WIN
AND WHO SHOULD LOSE AND WHY?*

>Let us hark back to one of your earlier scenarios:  Suppose you came to
>me for a job.  You seemed well qualified, but during the course of our
>interview it bacame obvious to me that you had these bizzare religious
>inclinations.  Perhaps it was because you wore some medallion, or because
>of some phrase you let slip in the course of conversation.  No matter. 
>Now, of course I would not hire you.  Qualifications or no, one cannot
>afford to take chances with this sort of pernicious dementia.  Non-
>descrimination clauses and tolerance are all well and good, but surely
>one must draw the line somewhere.  This sort of mental instability could
>actually endanger the lives of the other employees.
<29 more similar lines>
>It's curious, Mr. Brunson, that you started out by defending your right
>to refuse to hire someone.  Why didn't you start out by defending someone
>else's right to refuse to hire you?  I would be interested to hear you
>argue for my right to refuse to sell you my house because of your
>religious hysteria.  It's really in your best interest, after all.  I
>know that it's not really solving your problems, but at least I'm not
>adding to them by letting you fall into the complacent perception that
>there's nothing wrong with you.  Besides, how else can you be made to
>see the error of your ways?  Perhaps something a little more physical?

I have already stated on two occasions very clearly, very plainly, with
absolutely NO MARGIN FOR MISINTERPRETATION that I have no problem WHATSOEVER
with you discriminating against me.  That means not selling me a house, denying
me a job, firing me, refusing to do business with me.  That means that I will
not take you to court over it even though under present law I could.  As
for the "something more physical" part: that is and should remain illegal.

>The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a
>pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own rightousness.

The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a
pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own banality.

--
David Brunson, at your service