NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/co/general/2767

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.7 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: co.general
Path: sparky!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
From: [e-mail] (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:04:09 GMT
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>I don't think "right" applies in this context: Working for a particular
>>person/company is a privilage, not a right. I don't, for example,
>>think I have a "right" not to be fired solely for having green eyes.

>Affirmative action laws were created because people running businesses
>were discriminating for such reasons.  The determination, I think, Is
>that it is a priveledge to run a business, not to have a job.

I'm not aware of any such ruling: I don't suppose you could cite
a Court ruling on the subject?

>...So, if
>you run a business you have to hire ANY QUALIFIED person.  Eye color
>has no bearing on qualification, nor does skin color, religious choices
>or sexual orientation.

This certainly isn't true: Anti-discrimination laws specify reasons
for which one can _not_ be fired. Any reason (green eyes) not specified
is legal. In any case, this doesn't relate to the issue of rights: Many
right are infringed or limited by laws (slander laws, for example, limit
freedom of speach) and many laws provide/protect things that are not
rights (I don't think anyone would argue people have a "right" to
welfare checks...)

>From a purely business standpoint.  What difference does it make if you
>don't like an employee/customer as long as they get the job done!!!

In many cases, the employer has to work closely with his employees:
Certainly it would make a difference if you were required by law to
spend 40 hours a week around someone you found objectionable.

>I think that if it is a situation where a person wants to SHARE an
>appartment, then the person living there has the right to decide
>whom to live with.  However, if the appartment is run as a business,
>they shouldn't care who lives there as long as they pay rent on time
>and don't ruin the appartment.

I think you aren't clear on the idea of "private property". It means
that the property (an apartment, for example) is yours and you can
do whatever you like with it. Certainly, the government imposes
limits on this right, but that doesn't mean the right is nonexistant.

>Government gives tax incentives to married couples.  I think the question
>here is that if people of the same sex are allowed to get married, then
>they can capitalize on these incentives.  Also, many insurance policies
>held by employeers give benefits to a spouse not a "good friend."

Tax and insurance reductions are (like recognition of the marrage
itself) a privilage and not a right. You are objecting to the
government giving out privilages unfairly and inequally. I'm inclined
to agree (although I'd prefer the solution of no one receiving
privilages, as opposed to everyone...) However, this isn't an issue
of basic rights.

>Plus, it seems that the entire basis of the whole ammendment 2 issue
>is based upon religious beliefs.

I don't see this at all: Are laws against murder "based upon religious
beliefs" because murder is against one of the Ten Commandments?
Certainly both are consistant with certain religious views, but
to be based on them there would have to be no other reason for them.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder