\doc\web\97\07\gayunion.txt Date sent: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:31:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark White To: c-news@world.std.com Subject: C-NEWS: WTV Response to AFL-CIO National endorsement of I-677. (fwd) Send reply to: Mark White ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sidney Turbyfill Subject: WTV Response to AFL-CIO National endorsement of I-677. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 23, 1997 Contact: Bob Larimer 360-806-4271 Vancouver - In a sharply worded statement today, Washington for Traditional Values Executive Director Bob Larimer exposed what he called the "ridiculous alliance between labor leaders and homosexual special interests to advocate the passage of Initiative 677." Pointing to his experience as a union member, Larimer stated: "I have been a union member for over twenty-two years. I have served my union as Shop Steward, Chief Shop Steward, Contract Negotiator and Union Trustee Board Member. I have testified before the National Labor Relations Board concerning unfair labor practices and I recently led a successful charge against a very aggressive, prolonged effort to bust my local union, resulting just last Friday in a 'Yes' vote to keep the union in my work place. I am well acquainted with the very real, everyday concerns of rank and file, blue collar union workers. "I therefore find it extremely repugnant when I hear that state and national union leadership (such as the National AFL/CIO and Washington State AFL/CIO) have decided to involve themselves in pro-homosexual political gamesmanship. "Not only is it inappropriate to join in with the political efforts of a special interest which is identifiable only by its claimed sexual behaviors, it is a waste of all the time, money and attention which should be focused on average, everyday union people who want to know what their unions are doing about jobs, wages and working conditions. "Union dues should not be wasted on political advocacy for homosexual special interests. They especially should not be wasted on bait-and-switch measures like Washington's Initiative 677, which claims to be about 'job discrimination,' but which is really about stripping away freedoms of speech and conscience from employers and employees alike in the workplace, all to favor homosexual special interests and hand them a prejudicial, fast-track legal hammer regarding 'discrimination' in employment decisions. "Rank and file union members are betrayed by their leadership when the homosexual political agenda is allowed to take over legitimate union business. "Union members should vote against Initiative 677 and its special workplace privileges for homosexuals, and they should tell union leaders to forget the special interests and get back on track working for the rank and file." -- 30 -- ------- To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. (Arthur Hu's opinion) I'm curious why no one has pointed out that the language is nearly identical to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, yet is the foundation for racial preferences, and for the twisted logic that it is illegal to hire without regard to race. It does NOT contain wording banning preference on the basis of sexual preference. Thus such an act would almost certainly become the basis for preferences for gays/lesbians/bisexuals where they are either "under-represented" compared to the alleged 10% general population, or needed because of "diversity". Even if one were against literal discrimination, anyone who is opposed to group preferences under the excuse of "remedying past discrimination" should oppose this. >