Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss,net.politics
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <1058@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 22:08:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.1058
Posted: Thu Nov 15 22:08:52 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Nov-84 07:01:40 EST
References: <215@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 42

> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
> Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
> Message-ID: <215@usfbobo.UUCP>
> Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 22:59:09 EST

> 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 don't think you have the right to get so upset about people who assumed
that you were posing a religious question -- at the very least, your original
posting (remember, the one with the patronizing references to Jews, and how
you would derive spiritual brownie points by hiring one) was so poorly
worded that most respondents felt you were trying to set your religious
beliefs above the law.  Now you say, though, that your claim is simply that
gays ought not be a protected class under the law.  You seem to be going
a step further, and implying that while (some classes of) disrimination are
wrong, the law should not provide any protection at all.

Neither of those propositions is inherently indefensible; indeed, many
libertarians advocate the latter as an all-encompassing general policy.
As a card-carrying liberal (I'm a member of the ACLU...), I strongly
disagree.  I'll make an equally sweeping counterclaim -- that any refusal
to hire someone based on anything other than their ability to do the job
is morally wrong, and should probably be legally wrong as well.  In practice
(and probably as a matter of principle), explicit legal protection is
extended only to those groups where there exists a proven history of
massive discrimination -- i.e., against blacks, religious minorities,
women, etc.  Given the widespread homophobia in our society, and many
explicit calls that gays should not be hired, I therefore claim that
sexual preference should be a protected class under the applicable civil
rights statutes.


		--Steve Bellovin

P.S.  Given that the premise of the argument is now apparently political
instead of religious, I've cross-posted this to net.politics.  Future
discussion should probably not take place in net.religion....