Re: Supreme Court on CO anti-gay law

Topics: AA
22 Feb 1995

From: ervan

> > Because discrimination law takes from one group to give to another.
> > A: 'Heterosexuals were denied equal protection in Denver because their status
> > caused them to lose jobs in order to fill homosexual quotas'.
> Where do quotas and AA come into any of this? Anti-discrimination
> legislation, in its simplest form, says the employer is not allowed to say,
> "I'm not hiring you because I don't like this
> not-relevant-to-job-performance characteristic of yours." Is this not a
> legitimate characterization of anti-discrimination legislation?

It is not a legitimate characterization. Anti-discrimination law = quotas.
It's just a euphimism. The intent of the original authors of the legislation
may have been mind reading in the interest of "fairness". I neither know
nor care. It's implementation is quotas. Virtually every discrimination
law suit makes its case based on evidence of disproportionate representation
of a given group in the work place versus in the community. If an employer
were actually dumb enough to say "I don't hire fags" he would be in trouble.
But that is not the sort of thing going on in the real world.

> In what way does that take from one group and give to another? The only
> groups I see in that sense are the discriminated-against and the
> non-discriminated-against.

You trying to here to justify quotas, rather off the point.

If white employees owe the black unemployed
something, then assess damages and have them pay. That's not what is going on
here. People who are perfectly innocent of any wrong doing, even any ill
thoughts, are thrown out of their jobs by the force to law to give the job to
someone who is less qualified and has not shown that any ill effect, or even
ill will, has been directed against them. That's a direct economic transfer
based on the political power to pull the strings.

Going back to my point that starts this letter, the employee who loses his job
pays the price even though it is presumably the employer who is "guilty" of
irrational thoughts. Even if this all happens because of proof of prejudice
in the employer's mind and not merely a quota, the transfer from one innocent
group to another is nonetheless real.

> So, how would the case go that upheld the CO amendment? Presumably it
> won't repeal anti-discrmination legislation, and so I'm wondering what
> arguments would be used. Your arguments wouldn't work, because they demand
> dumping it all (which won't happen).

Yes, that's right. Your last sentence answers the first. The courts have
no interest in enforcing the constitution, therefore they won't. I don't know
precisely what the lawyers have in mind, but I expect it will be some mix of
the following:
1) The voters have sovereignty over government finances [a flawed argument as
you pointed out].
2) Gays have not shown historical economic damage in the same way blacks have
and since AA is about righting wrongs, extending it to gays changes its
character and not just its extent. Since it is protecting something different,
"equal" protection is meaningless.
3) My argument revisted with everyone conveniently ignoring its precedent value.
This has happened before. Reverse-discrimination cases have made it to the courts
without any final ruling on the whole mess.
4) The Supreme Court has already upheld laws banning homosexual conduct. They may
go for some slimy version of 'why should we help criminals?'.