Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: Re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <2346@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 12:05:54 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.2346
Posted: Fri Nov  9 12:05:54 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 21:17:20 EST
References: <usfbobo.215>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 30
Summary: 

In article <usfbobo.215> brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) writes:
>
>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?*
 
I'll bite.  Given that the homosexual (it could also be any person,
Christian, Jew, Moslem, Atheist, Bahai, heterosexual or any-other-sexual
you can imagine) does not disrupt work by bringing their personal
ideosyncracies into the workplace, then they should win the suit.

Simple enough?

The funny thing, Brunson, is that you probably have non-heterosexuals
(interesting word) working for you now, or will have them working
for you in the future and you won't know it.  I'd also guess that
there are lots of people you'd refuse to hire thinking they were gay
who, in fact, are not.  It's ironic that you aren't discriminating
on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of honesty.

(Unless, of course, you're given to creeping and peeping around
folks bedrooms at night in which case you are definitely due for
a spell in the slammer.)
-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch