Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <390@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 13:49:13 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.390
Posted: Fri Nov  9 13:49:13 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 09:07:44 EST
References: <215@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 26

> [David Brunson:]
> 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?*

To answer your question, the person who refuses to hire homosexuals
should lose, and the homosexual should win.  "Should" means that, in
my opinion, this is what I believe is more just.

The problem is that the employer wishes to hire only people who he/she is
comfortable having around, while the person looking for work wishes to
have access to any job based only on their ability, not the personal
preferences of the employer.  I believe that it is more important for
the employee to be protected from discrimination than it is for the
employer to be allowed to discriminate.
 
> 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.

Ok, so you disagree with me.