Apollo: One gas environment?

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
You can lose your job simply
based on sexual-orientation.

There is *nothing unconstitutional whatsoever* about a private employer
firing someone based on their sexual orientation, their sex, the color of
their car, or the fact that they like to read Usenet.

There may be state constitutions or local laws that make such acts illegal,
but it is *not* against the US Constitution, nor should it be. Part of
freedom of association- which *is* in the Constitution- is the freedom to
choose the persons with whom you want to associate.

*Discrimination* makes life possible. I certainly discriminate when I refuse
to provide services for someone who can't pay me. I certainly discriminate
when I choose not to allow someone who I think is unqualified to perform
surgery on me. I am discriminated against properly when a store refuses to
sell something to me at a much lower price I choose instead of their listed
price.

I wouldn't be surprised that with US law, that there may be some
determintation that would preclude most minorities from protection!!

Such as white males.

In article ,
Brett Buck wrote:
Laws may only be as good as the societies implementing them.

There is no place in this country where the government is allowed to draw
distinctions based on race, color, creed, political affiliation.

I would be very surprised if TSA's airport-security screeners are truly
race/color-blind. (Remember, what matters is results, not theory -- pious
policies of color-blindness cut no ice in civil-rights suits, if they are
obviously not being enforced.) Oh, but that's in the name of "national
security", right?

If the draft is revived -- which I understand has been mentioned, although
I'm not sure how seriously -- it will be interesting to see whether draft
boards are forbidden to consider creed when evaluating claims for
conscientious-objector status. They weren't last time.

As for political affiliation, last I heard, that applied only if your
political affiliations were not to organizations that were deemed (by
sometimes-unclear criteria) to have terrorist connections.

It's simply a non-issue.

"None so blind as those that will not see."
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Brett Buck" wrote in message
...
Well, given that US law decrees that there may be no official
discrimination against minorities whatsoever, in any form

Not quite- it means no discrimination against legally recognized minorities
for specific reasons, a subtle but important difference. I'm completely free
to discriminate against working for a black person. I could not discriminate
against a black person in the matter of hiring them *because they were
black*, but I certainly could discriminate against them on the basis of
competency. The hard part is showing that it was competency and not skin
color.

This is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen is not permitted to
do stupid things. In general, discrimination against the protected classes
for the protected reasons is stupid. If some moron wants to refuse to serve
a faggot because he's a faggot, it's that moron's business. If it's
important enough to the market the moron serves, then that market will go
somewhere else and the moron will go out of business. This will more
thoroughly change the behavior of the moron than any law will, and will do
so without government intervention.

I happen to be biased against homosexuality, but I wouldn't refuse someone's
business because they are gay. That just seems unAmerican to me. Besides, if
I'm in business to make money, it goes against the mission to refuse to do
business with a source of money. I'm not obligated to socialize with someone
who engages in behavior that I consider improper, but it would be foolish
not to do business with that person, and to be cordial while doing so, and
to give that person my very best effort and to use the quality of materials,
if any, appropriate for the service ordered.

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
Where am I wrong?

Speaking only from personal experience, I'd have to say Usenet. I don't know
about your day-to-day life.

In message
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote:

...I've always been confused about that one. I've heard differing
stories over the years, first that it was mandantory even if you
didn't own a TV set, then it was mandantory only if you owned a set,
and then it varied on what part of Englandland you lived in.

You are required to have a valid licence for the operation of equipment
capable of receiving broadcast TV signals. 120 quid for a colour set
(VCRs are assumed to be colour equipment) less for black and white only.
The licence covers all equipment installed on the premises.

What exactly makes a TV incapable of receiving signals is between you
and the magistrate if you are caught, some will accept proof the TV is
not tuned in to any station but it's safest to disable the tuner in some
way.

If you have say a TV and video which are only used for watching
pre-recorded material you don't need a licence, but a few people who
thought they'd get away with having a neighbour record things off air
for them on a regular basis found themselves on the wrong end of a fine.

It's something you learn to appreciate, like having unarmed police.

Anthony

--
| Weather prediction will never be accurate until we |
| kill all the butterflies |

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
I'm a left-handed, blue-eyed Swiss-American male, 35 years old

(sigh)

I remember 35...increasingly vaguely...

On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:34:22 +0000, G EddieA95 wrote:

Warfighting
is the main business of government, everywhere,

Quoting Jose Jimenez (or was it Alan Shepard?)

Oh, I hope not!

On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:29:10 +0000, Brett Buck wrote:

On 5/11/04 9:40 AM, in article , "Nicholas
Fitzpatrick" wrote:

In article ,
G EddieA95 wrote:

Warfighting
is the main business of government, everywhere,

Ah ... perhaps that is the fundamental problem with the USA. Is this
a common belief there?

Uh, almost any concept of civilization is that people group together in
order to provide for the common defense. It's a fundamental principle of
human society, so yes, it's a common belief. I personally would argue that
common defense is nearly the *only* valid function of collective government,
but even if you think it should so more than that, common defense is central
to any theory.


Lets see:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...

Nah, that's too long, let's just do warfighting!

The founders only put common defense fourth. The top of the first
inning lasted about 215 years before we switched to offense.

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

Where am I wrong? I only commented here that US legislators seem to
need constitutional guidance, to do the right thing. Where am I wrong?

You also don't understand the nature of constitutional democracy and the
oversight role of the judicial branch of American government. Please do
try to catch up.

You are very arrogant, and assuming about what I know and don't know.
Please don't tell me what I understand and don't understand,
particularily when we haven't discussed the issue first.

I'm sure my understading of how the US constitution, and the judicial
legislative, and executive branches work is far better than many
Americans. (and apparently my understanding of the contents of
the Geneva Conventions as well!)

Nick

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
Where am I wrong?

Speaking only from personal experience, I'd have to say Usenet. I don't know
about your day-to-day life.

:-)

Touché

Nick