🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dxw4BL.FoD.0.net@indra.com>, Gary Strand <gstrand@indra.com> wrote:
>f > frear@drmail.dr.att.com
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> I wonder if an absolute straight could join the CU LBG group? 
>
>f > Of course they could.
>
>  What if such a person was an ardent homophobe?
>
>  If I feel I'm not welcome, I don't push the issue - why do others?

Look at all of the articles espousing Christianity on the pagan
newsgroups.  *sigh*

"Freedom of Speech" does not just include the right to say whatever you
want (within broad bounds), it also includes the right to _not_ say things
you don't wish to say (once again, within broad bounds).  The classic
example, one which recently came up yet again, is the right of citizens
to post anonymous broadsides against the government.  (N.B., the
election campaign funding laws _can_ require disclosure since they serve
another "compelling public interest."  Anonymous broadsides are allowed
for things like zoning laws, leash laws, etc.)

It seems reasonable that "Freedom of Association" likewise allows a
group to not only freely associate with birds of a feather, but also to
_exclude_ individuals who would be disruptive of the group as a whole.

Claiming that a LBG group could exclude _all_ straights is excessive,
but it doesn't seem unreasonable for the group to exclude individuals 
(regardless of sexual orientation) who are there for reasons contrary 
to the charter of the group.

As to College Republicans... they might reasonably wish to exclude
"liberals" (of any sexual orientation) from meetings since they
don't support the Republican political philosophy, but the last time 
I checked even the most radical Republican in San Diego accepted the
right of all citizens (including LBGs) to participate in the political
process... and like it or not a key part of the political process is
the right to get involved.  The Christian Right is powerful in the
Republican party today because they attended meetings, and if enough
LBG individuals participated in party activities it could be dominated
by the "LBG lobby" within a few years!

(Okay, it's unlikely due to numerical constraints, but the historical
fact is that the focus of political parties _do_ shift over time, and
it's much harder to exclude someone from a "political" group than from
an "interest" group.)

>f > Men are never prohibited from marching.
>
>  In Boulder, at CU, men have been prohibited from marching. And men have been
>  (as I said) excluded (and ejected) from IWW fora.
>
>  If the CRs exclusion of homosexuals is wrong, the above two things are wrong.

What happens afterwards?  It's one thing if a group ejects the 
"undesirables" and faces no consequences, it's very much a different
thing if they do so and face substantial penalties from an oversight
organization.

I don't remember what happened with the IWW forums, but I do recall
the group of "wimyn" who protested sexism by glueing little penises
on their noses and drawing on their exposed breasts... and then 
threatened to sue when a newspaper reporter took a picture of a 
public protest in a public university during a public forum.  They 
eventually learned that "public" really does means public, when a
copy of that picture appeared in _Playboy_ (horrors!).

>  Freedom of association, like freedom of speech, is an unassailable right for
>  some people only some of the time. Scary how folks treat our rights - is it
>  any wonder the government runs roughshod over them so frequently?
>-- 
>Gary Strand
>gstrand@indra.com                                http://www.indra.com/~gstrand


-- 
Bear Giles                     For every complex problem there is an
bear@indra.com                 answer that is clear, simple and wrong.
                                                       -- H L Mencken