From article <pdb059-220493112512@kilimanjaro.jpl.nasa.gov>, by pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew):

#> 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.


No, don't stop!

#> Right to Equal Opportunity (lets call it REO) involves coercion in all cases
#> (by definition).


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?


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.


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 500, 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.


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.