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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson
From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
Message-ID: <223@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 04:47:31 EST
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.223
Posted: Sun Nov 18 04:47:31 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 02:37:21 EST
References: <214@usfbobo.UUCP>, <238@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 40

re:

>From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
>Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
>Subject: re: "Gay Rights"
>Message-ID: <238@rlgvax.UUCP>
>                                                                 Indeed,
>there is no "nice-guy" way to handle the problem.  Society either has to
>be nasty to the "Bible believers" or to gays.  I think it should be nasty
>to the "Bible believers".  Their actions directly and provably harm gays.
>The gays' actions can only be shown to harm other people by swallowing
>the "Bible believers'" anti-gay line hook, line, and sinker.  I operate -
>and most of the people arguing the pro-gay position operate - on the principle
>that enjoining someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm
>other people is *immoral*.  That's right, immoral.  We don't pussyfoot around
>here; I'll pull out the tough expletives and use them here.  Therefore the
>gay should win the suit, and the "Bible believer" should be condemned.

Alright!  Now we're getting somewhere!  People are *finally* beginning to
speak the right language!  So now we have "the principle that enjoining
someone from doing something that doesn't demonstratably harm other people
is *immoral*."  Without commenting on the validity of this as a universal
principle, I don't see how I am violating it by refusing you a job.  By
refusing you a job, I am simply not allowing you in my *community*, or
sphere of influence.  You are free to go somewhere else and do as you please.

>                             Gays *are* demonstratably and objectively harmed
>by employment discrimination - it's hard to live without eating, and it's
>hard to eat without being able to afford your food, and it's hard to be
>able to afford food without getting paid by an employer.

There seems to be some unstated moral principle behind this statement.
You seem to be saying that an employer is morally *obligated*
to hire you.  Why?  What is your universal moral principle in this case?

--
David Brunson

... better understanding through higher education.