[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Title VII v. Liberty

At 1:40 PM 9/9/94, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>Actually, as I recall these have mostly been marketing studies. For
>whatever reason (perhaps the same "oppressed group syndrome" that
>tends to make several other minorities work harder) gay men tend to be
>higher up on the income scale. No, I can't find a reference in a
>second -- but if you insist I'll dig one up. Those knowing my opinions

If you happen across one, I'd like to see it, but don't go out
of your way

>closely enough will know that I loathe fundamentalist christians and
>that I'm quite rabbid in attacking discrimination against homosexuals.

I have at least a rough sketch of your political views in mind, Perry.
I wasn't trying to attack you - I was trying to correct something
that is a very common misconception. Just happens to be on a rather
charged topic.

Assuming it was a marketing survey, this makes a lot more sense.
They are going to look places where people selling things have a
good chance to sell, which tends not to be the blue collar sections
(where due to violence and educational differences, people are also
much more likely to be closeted, and results are skewed anyway)

Also note that income brackets are, to my experience, extremely
variant among gays depending on location, race and (here's the
biggest, it seems) sex.

>Let me note that Jews and Asians are not protected groups under Title
>10 -- there are no affirmative action laws for us, and there *is*
>discrimination against them -- sometimes even very violent
>discrimination. Somehow, however, they have managed to do just fine in

Although I believe this is an apples/oranges situation on a number
of grounds (no comments on discussing fruit, please :), I see your
point. I still strongly disagree that such legislation isn't nessessary,
but that's neither here nor there...


"Blah Blah Blah"
Jamie Lawrence                                  <[email protected]>