Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Women Enforce Equal Rights AGAIN!
> >From: "Heidi Graw" heidigraw{at}shaw.ca
> >Date: 1/12/2005 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >> wrote in message
> >>news:1105475076.014326.168360{at}f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> >> They didn't enforce equal rights, as no one has an inherent right
> >> to join the Bay State Eagles, a private organization.  They forced

> >> themselves on a club whose members didn't want them.  So much for
> >> the "choice" they so often carp about.
>
> None of us has an inherent right to discriminate in the name of
choice,

We most certainly do have the right to discriminate in the name of
whatever.  I know the word itself offends you, but consider its true
meaning.  If I choose to go to a nightclub with one group of people and
not another, because I don't like something about that other group, I
am discriminating against the other group, and no one has the right to
stop me.  This brings me to another suggestion.  Think less about
whether so-and-so has a right to do whatever he's doing.  Consider
whether you have a right to stop him.

Here we witness the feminist making a commonly used argument against
the observance of a natural right, or a constitutional right.  They'll
claim, for example, that the question of free association is secondary
to that of discrimination.  They have it backwards.  The natural right
to associate freely is primary, and it should only be denied if such
free association impinges on the natural rights of someone else.

If you really are a wiccan, you should know the saying, "Do as ye will,
yet harm none."  But you certainly have a hard time living by that
philosophy, you being such a control freak.

> or even within the freedom to associate.  When any suspect class of
> people are denied entry to a societal institution they are facing
> discrimination.

They also face discrimination if they are denied entry to a private
club, meeting on private property.  Tough.  As long as the meeting
people aren't hurting anyone, they can shut their door in the face of
whomever the like, for whatever reason.

I know you don't like that.

> >> We once had the right to associate>> freely with whom we pleased,
> >> but this too is being eroded, and you call> that
"equal rights."
>
> Yes.  The right to associate doesn't mean that slaveholders can
associate, nor

Sloppy reasoning.  Slaveholders are taking freedom from other's,
thereby breaking good law.  Of course they can't associate for the
purpose of doing so.

> does it mean that hooded men in white can hide their face while
practicing
> bigotry,

They certainly can, and do.  The Klan has every right to dress in white
sheets and assemble, which is why no one arrests them when they do so.
As long as they don't hurt anyone, they're kosher.

> nor does it mean that men can exclude women just because they ARE
> women.

That depends on what men are excluding women from.  I can exclude a
woman from my house because she's a woman, or gay, or Thai, or you.  I
needn't explain myself, and no one can stop me.  I can't exclude women
if I'm the Director of Public Works, because this is a public
organization.

Without hurting your ugly little head, do try to distinguish between
the private and public.

> >Greg..that *isn't* equal rights.  The judges are not ruling fairly
when
> >these women gripe about not being allowed in a men's club.  There
are other
> >choices in town of clubs which would have welcomed them as members.
>
> When the court determines that equal opportunity is denied based on
excluding a

Appeal to authority.  Invalid.  Courts can be wrong.

[...]

> It's simply not necessary to reinvent the wheel just because men want
> a patent on it.  :-)

Sloppy reasoning.  The Bay State Eagles didn't apply for a patent on
the wheel.  They just wanted to gather without women around.  No one
could demonstrate that they were harming women by meeting without them,
so no one should have imposed on them.  They had a right to do what
they were doing, whether YOU like it or not.

[...]

> You're just being a silly-billy.

And you are posting true to form - like a moron.

[...]



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/3/05 10:19:02 PM ---