[Vision2020] My gay agenda (again)

[g. crabtree]

Melynda & Andreas, please do not leap to unfounded conclusions as to what I 
am or am not glad about, my religious affiliations or anything else. In 
almost every case you would be widely missing the mark or flat out wrong. As 
to my mistaken notion that the same anti-discrimination/hate crime law in 
place in CA, OR, & WA as well as at the federal level (section 280003 of the 
violent crime control & enforcement act of 1994 & EEOC/SUSC2302 as 
interpreted by the OPM) applied in Idaho, I was ignorantly in error. I 
apologize. My point was not to sidle up to the lunatic right or inflame the 
idiot left but to speak up for real, true libertarian equality. The sort of 
equality that allows a person autonomy over what is his own. Should some 
foolish conservative, Christian male (just as an example & to make this easy 
for you) wish to refuse to hire, rent to, serve, etc. gays, Hispanics, 
blacks, women, Jews or even the dreaded Scandinavians (sorry, Carl) then 
fine. It's his sad loss. Conversely, should team Husky, Opyr, & Schou or 
anyone else wish to get together and discriminate against dumpy, balding, 
middle aged, pasty fleshed chowder heads with an opinion, then knock 
yourselves out, I'll deal. A true level playing field with no nanny state 
intervention. My personal opinion is that everyone's money is green and it's 
one of my favorite colors. I realize that there are a few areas where the 
law must intrude but these should be kept to the fewest possible exceptions. 
As to violence, I do not see how it is more egregious to seek out someone 
because of race, creed or orientation than it is to act randomly. All 
violent acts should be treated equally harshly, regardless of motive, in 
most cases. I don't think that your murder/man slaughter analogy holds up 
well in this instance.

G. Crabtree

P.S.  For an entertaining summer read, I just finished "Captain Sir Richard 
Francis Burton" by Edward Rice. A great book about an overlooked historical 
figure. If it doesn't make ya yearn to explore then there is just no 
adventure in your soul. Next up, "Building Harlequin's Moon" by Larry Niven 
& Brenda Cooper. Pure brain candy. And in the wings, "Lewis Carroll, A 
Biography" by Morton N. Cohen. Looks like I won't be on many cocktail party 
invites for the foreseeable future.

gc





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
Cc: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Joan Opyr" 
<joanopyr at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] My gay agenda (again)


On 5/17/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> Joan, Why is it that if I were to walk up to Dick, smack him in the gob 
> and
> berate him for being a good for nothing, lazy, ugly, stinking, white, 
> male,
> heterosexual, I would only be guilty of battery? If I committed a similar
> assault on you it would be battery and a hate crime.

The number of misperceptions above is roughly equal to the number of words.

First: Idaho law doesn't even currently cover sexual orientation. If
you punched Joan in the gob for being a lesbian, you would get what
pretty much everyone arrested for punching someone in the gob gets: an
battery citation. If Joan punched you in the gob for being a white
dude or a Christian, she'd potentially be open to a misdemeanor and a
felony charge: battery and malicious harassment.

Let me quote you the actual Idaho law:

18-7902.  MALICIOUS HARASSMENT DEFINED -- PROHIBITED. It shall be
unlawful for any person, maliciously and with the specific intent to
intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race,
color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, to:

(a)  Cause physical injury to another person; or

(b)  Damage, destroy, or deface any real or personal property of
another person; or

(c)  Threaten, by word or act, to do the acts prohibited if there is
reasonable cause to believe that any of the acts described in
subsections (a) and (b) of this section will occur.

See anything about sexual orientation in there? No? That's because
it's not there, Gary. See anything in there about race and religion?
Sure do. The same action -- punching somone in the face because of who
they are -- is a felony for her, but a misdemeanor for you.

She's not receiving any sort of "special treatment" under the law; in
fact, she's not even receiving equal protection. But I suspect you
knew that. This is the same thing that conservatives pull every time
their own special privileges are under attack: "Help! Help! Your
rights are oppressing me!"

> equals before the law to me. If I refuse to hire Dick to work in my shop
> 'cause he's so straight he wouldn't be able to turn corners (hawr, hawr,
> hawr) his recourse would be to seek work elsewhere.

This is true. But not for the reasons you think.

> If I refuse to hire you  for being gay (insert favorite ignorant dumb ass 
> comment followed > by guffaws here) a discrimination suit would be sure to 
> follow.

Sexual orientaiton -- either gay or straight -- isn't covered under
fair housing law and isn't covered under federal or state labor law,
though there are states where it is covered. And where it is covered,
gay and straight Americans are protected equally under the law.

Even in those states where sexual orientation is protected, you don't
see a lot of employment suits for anti-straight discrimination. The
reason for that is that there is not a gay Mafia controlling
employment in the US -- which you already know.

-- ACS