[9207] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Bigots? It's bigoted to oppose committing Felonies?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Tue Dec 21 14:26:19 1993
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 14:23:37 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: PAUL@tdr.com
Cc: cman@caffeine.io.com, com-priv@psi.com, postman@lists.psi.com
In-Reply-To: Paul Robinson's message of Tue, 21 Dec 1993 07:52:09 -0500 (EST) <01.1993Dec21.07h51m58s.PAUL-c100000@TDR.COM>
>From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>
>Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the practice of homosexuality a
>felony in Texas? Thus that city's operators were saying that they did not
>want to offer tax breaks to a company that subsidizes criminal behavior.
Although certain very specific acts sometimes associated with
homosexuality (e.g. sodomy) are probably still illegal that's
different than criminalizing merely being a homosexual, you could be a
homosexual and be completely celibate also, no?
In fact, I'll venture a lot of people who consider themselves
homosexuals or bisexuals either are celibate or go thru the motions of
heterosexuality due to the climate. As an example, there are probably
still laws on the books prohibiting certain heterosexual acts, but
that doesn't ban heterosexuality per se, why wouldn't you make that
leap? Because the reasoning only applies to what is considered
non-mainstream???
To paraphrase Molly Ivins only slightly: The reason fistfights are
discouraged in the Texas legislative chambers is because it's still
illegal to allow a prick to touch an asshole in that state.
>In fact, for Apple to be doing this may in fact allow the directors of the
>corporation to be charged with - and I may have the term wrong - "misprison
>of felony" since their corporate standard in affect provides approval of a
>relationship which is proscribed as a serious crime under State law in the
>same manner, as, say, providing a place for people to shoot heroin. Or it
>could be grounds to invoke conspiracy charges.
I don't remember Apple providing homosexual trysting space, they just
said that their family health care provisions were gender-permutation
neutral.
There's a big difference. You can pay for the health care to fix the
broken arm of an employee who is a heroin addict also and not thereby
be considered culpable for his heroin usage. Particularly if you have
no interest or reason to know that he is a heroin addict. You would
have to establish a little more of a connection than you have
presented.
And I'll also point out that the whole line of reasoning you present
is morally bankrupt. Just shuffling the issue around like that,
particularly when we're talking about legislative bodies, is a bit
distasteful. They took the job, they can deal with the issues. Their
hiding behind technicalities is not laudable, it just sounds like a
cheap put-off. Even they didn't use this sort of reasoning, at least
they had the conviction to just say they thought it was wrong and not
try to work weasel-words and blame it all on someone else.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
