re freedom of association from article pdb kilimanjaro jpl nasa gov by pdb ipl jpl nasa gov paul bartholomew in article philc v vo ju netcom com phil netcom com phil ronzone wrote a very well put together post i disagree with several key points but the post is an excellent one with which to engage in discourse i agree wholeheartedly paul you have handled this so well i think that you could write ballot materials thank you i d hoped to avoid the rancor that has characterized much of the debate on this issue i m also not going to prolong the debate on this i wanted to respond to a couple of the points you make but this will be my last posting on this no don t stop right to equal opportunity lets call it reo involves coercion in all cases by definition one question is it your position that there is no reo or just that this is a lesser right to foa good question it just depends how s that for an answer seriously i believe that it depends on wether or not you are talking about a governmental employer or not in this case i believe that there should be absolutely no discrimination direct or indirect period i feel this way not because it would offend my moral sensibilities which it of course would but because the government is a coercive entity which we cannot escape it boggles my mind that in my lifetime there were whites only drinking fountains in some parks but no fountains for others yet the taxes garnished to support those fountains certainly were not applied to whites only in essence we cannot escape the coercive state even randy weavers have to pay property tax on the other hand private employers are not a monopoly and their businesses should be run by them and not by the government unless they elect to turn their affairs over to that government why says who why can mom pop have foa but ibm be forced and force is the correct word here to have reo in the case of the mom pop store their foa is directly affected they as individuals will have to associate with whomever they hire in the case of ibm i ask again whose foa are we protecting i do not accept that ibm as a corporate entity has a right to foa but if the mom pop store is affected by who they hire isn t ibm there is a slippery slope here in santa cruz where a number of loony anti discrimination laws exist a guy sued a restaurant for not hiring him because he had every imaginable kitchen utensil dangling from his earlobe and his tatoos were very distracting suddenly by arm waving by magic a landlord does not have foa and on what basis does the foa of the landlord disappear it seems that vague terms like no contact with tenants suffice on the basis that the landlord has no contact with his her tenants if the landlord doesn t associate with his tenants then how can he complain that his foa is being violated i have a lot of interaction all positive with my tenants so i guess that that isn t an issue but say i were to buy a unit in another town and have it managed by a third party let s say that i have a real aversion to christians because of the stuff that they buy into hook line and sinker and because of the lunatic schmucks that they try to get elected i don t want any of those fish symbols hanging in the window of a house that i own should the government intervene if i was elie weizel and the only rental applicant was tom metzger should i be forced to rent this distant unit to him the companies on the fortune for example are all privately owned they can give you a list of all of their owners they have no anonymous unknown to them owners publicly owned in the sense that their stock is publicly traded and that the shares of stock are owned by a generic and ever changing public yes and the neat thing about this is that unlike the mom pop store you and i can buy shares in ibm and have influence over their decision making policies if we don t like them anyway paul keep up the good work mark walsh walsh optilink uucp uunet optilink walsh amateur radio km xu wx k aol bigcookie aol com uscf l what me worry william m gaines i m gonna crush you andre the giant
