I was very interested in Bob Lamb's proposed version of the Human
Rights Statement.
 
I like the general idea of opposing invidious discrimination on any
grounds, and of refusing to support any organization that engages in
such discrimination.  I agree with him that the notion of "invidious"
discrimination ought to cover all the different discriminatory ills to
which we object.
 
But I have two reservations:
 
First, part of the point of this whole discussion is the question of
whether discrimination against people based on sexual orientation *is*
"invidious discrimination."  The Colorado problem came about
because some people in Colorado think that it is not.  Those of us who
believe that it is indeed invidious discrimination would like a
statement clearly saying so.  Further, some of those in the
organization who dislike the original Human Rights Statement oppose it
on the specific basis that sexual orientation discrimination *isn't*
invidious.  My point is that by simply using the word "invidious" we
may arrive at something to which we can all agree, but only at the
price of side-stepping the very issue that is being raised here.  The
organization needs to have serious debate, and some resolution, on the
question of sexual orientation discrimination itself.  That debate is
likely to be unpleasant, but I don't think we ought to avoid it.
 
Second, the preliminary indications are that we would *not* have
difficulty in getting an excuse clause into our hotel contracts.
Apparently there are several organizations that already get them, and
there seems to be some basis for believing that hotels in
jurisdictions that are unlikely to be a problem won't mind, while
hotels in jurisdictions that *may* be a problem will seriously discuss
that possibility with us...in which case we ought to consider booking
elsewhere.  Now, we don't yet have all the data on this question; but
I don't think we should throw out the "contractual" part of the
Statement until we actually know the answers to these questions.
 
Further, this Statement came into being because of
an unpleasant contractual provision (namely a huge liquidated damages
clause) which prevented us from taking action that at least part of
the organization thought was warranted.  Sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander:  If we're to be penalized for getting out of the
contract, then we should be clearly given the option of escaping in
those situations we can contemplate in which we would not wish to
continue.
 
Ken
 
[log in to unmask]  (401) 245-1841
---
 ~ 1st 1.11 #4622 ~