Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action: Reply to Sykora
Message-ID: <208@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 19:06:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.208
Posted: Wed Jun  5 19:06:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 03:09:06 EDT
References: <266@unc.UUCP> <1340120@acf4.UUCP> <641@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 49

> > >/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 10:12 pm  May 26, 1985 */
> > 
> > >But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair
> > >chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist
> > >attitudes?
> > 
>   from Michael Sykora:
> > Because such measures interfere with the employer's property rights,
> > and, perhaps, the employer's right to hold racist and sexist opinions.
> > 
> > 						Mike Sykora
> 
> Under this argument we might as well go back to separate facilities for
> blacks and whites.  We may as well return to the days when bus companies
> (often publicly owned and operated) decided that one of their "rights"
> was to make black people ride in the back of the bus for no other reason
> than being a different color.  We might as well return to the days
> when people had to pay to vote - after all their voting may interfere
> with "employer's property rights".
>  
Government, and its publicly owned subsidiaries, because they are 
intrinsically monopolies, have no right to discriminate, since everyone
ends up paying taxes, in one form or another, to support the government.
In addition, the monopoly nature of government means that if they are
discriminating foolishly, there is no alternate business to patronize
and make rich.  Private companies that discriminate (unless a *substantial*
part of the population agrees with them) with be uncompetitive with
non-discriminatory companies; this is why governments around the world
have usually *required* discrimination of private employers --- South
Africa being a good example.

If an employer doesn't have the right to make decisions as to who
will be hired, why do you have to right to discriminate in who you
have sex with?  Isn't it "unfair" that you aren't an equal opportunity
sexual partner?  Why should homosexuals (especially S&M types) be
treated so badly by you?  What makes sexual relations any more private
than business relations?  In both cases, you are deciding who you are
going to associate with in a transaction that involves both of you.

If you want to argue that business transactions affect our whole
society: congratulations, that's what people who support anti-homosexuality
laws argue.  They claim the effects of what consenting adults do in
private (which is what employment is) lower the moral tone and character
of the society as a whole.  Why don't you accept that there are some
things that the government has no right to interfere with?  If you
don't, you are making it easier for the people that would put a 
camera in every bedroom.

>                 tim sevener   whuxl!orb