From: john1@shore.net (Fred Cherry)
Subject: Re: Washington State Measure 677 fails, 60% against.
Date: 17 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <64q2ft$974@shell2.shore.net>
References: <346089A0.41AD@no_spam.serv.net> <3460A736.989FAF45@pacifier.com> <cubsfan-ya02408000R0511971352470001@207.126.101.83> <3460E12F.36B2ABD8@pacifier.com> <64i3em$jnv@shell2.shore.net> <34704491.25243035@eskinews.eskimo.com>
Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net)
Newsgroups: wash.politics, uva.want-ads, tacoma.politics, soc.singles, soc.motss, soc.bi, seattle.politics, misc.legal.computing, misc.legal, alt.support.crossposting, alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.sex.services, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.parents-teens, alt.misc, alt.mindcontrol, alt.mens-rights, alt.indivi dualism, alt.homosexual,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.discrimination, alt.censorship, alt.america, alt.activism

Original Copy on Dejanews : click here



In Message-ID: <34704491.25243035@eskinews.eskimo.com>
Newsgroups: wash.politics, uva.want-ads, tacoma.politics, soc.singles, soc.motss, so c.bi, seattle.politics, misc.legal.computing, misc.legal, alt.support.crossposting, alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.sex.services, alt.sex.bestiality, alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.parents-teens, alt.misc,alt.mindcontrol, alt.mens-rights, alt.individualism, alt.homosexual, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.discrimination, alt.censorship, alt.america, alt.activism
Subject: Re: Washington State Measure 677 fails, 60% against.
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 01:10:05 GMT


jwilk@eskimo.com (John Wilkinson) wrote:


> Mr. Cherry, I was present as a visitor at the board meeting of Equality
> Washington when they voted to place the initiative before the voters.
>
> I can say from absolute personal knowledge that your assertion is flatly
> false.
>
> Equality Washington wanted to make sexual orientation discrimination in
> the workplace illegal, period.
>
> In the recent past some heterosexual waitresses in Florida were
> dismissed from their jobs by the new owner of a lounge/restaurant who
> wanted to appeal to a gay clientele. The local lesbian/gay civil rights
> group came to the aid of the the waitresses as a matter of principle.
>
> Your implication that the people behind 677 have no belief in
> widely-held principles is your own invention, based on nothing other
> than your vivid imagination.


You homos have a strange notion of what the term "Equality" actually means. If your ideas of "widely-held principles" had been adopted when the laws forbidding discrimination based on religion were adopted, we would have seen something like this:



a. Discrimination on the basis of religious orientation is forbidden.

b. Religious orientation shall mean the choice of the house of worship to which one goes on Sunday to worship God.




When one of the laws on religious discrimination was being debated, they actually did try to pull a stunt like that. The proponents of that law wanted to exclude Atheists from the scope of that law. Fortunately, fairness prevailed then.

You have already tried to justify the exclusion of people who practice bestiality from your so-called "widely-held principles." You claim that animals cannot consent to sex. But what if the animal actually initiates sexual activity? Some of the people who post in the newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality claim that this is the case. Are you calling them liars?

Well, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. My sexual orientation is that I am a client of women prostitutes. I recently posted on Usenet the text of a talk I gave last March at the International Conference On Prostitution and sex work sponsored by Cal. State University, Northridge and C.O.Y.O.T.E. (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics, a prostitutes and sex workers rights organization) held March 13 to 16 at the Airtel Plaza Hotel in Van Nuys, CA. Here is a portion of what I said:






Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I am a client of women prostitutes, commonly known as a "john." I am now 71 years of age and I have been patronizing women prostitutes since the age of thirty.

I have to give you some background about myself so that you may understand exactly how and why I became a john. I was born with a chronic illness known as celiac disease. This is also known as malabsorption syndrome. On June '84 I sued in New York State court for the purpose of having the laws penalizing prostitution declared unconstitutional. I lost the case on the grounds that I hadn't been arrested. Go to any law library and look up the case of Cherry v. Koch, 491 N.Y.S. 2d 934 & Cherry v. Koch, 514 N.Y.S. 2d 30.

The complaint in that case says, and I quote:



b. Plaintiff CHERRY suffers from a medical condition known as malabsorption syndrome (also known as celiac disease).

c. Said medical condition causes plaintiff CHERRY to suffer from emaciation and extreme fatigue, making it impossible for him to engage in normal social activities that lead to meeting women and sexual relationships.

d. After many years of unsuccessful attempts to develop a sexual relationship with a non-prostitute woman, plaintiff CHERRY first had sex, at the age of thirty, with a woman prostitute.

End of quote.


Just to show you how thin I am, when I was 38 years old, I was five feet, ten inches in height and weighed 98 pounds. Now, because I have a low thyroid condition, I have ballooned up to 120 pounds.

Here is another example of a disabled john. This comes from the book: NOT FOR LOVE, by Virginia McManus, pages 150-151 (New Dell Edition First Printing--January, 1964 . Ms. McManus was a schoolteacher who had a friend who was a prostitute. One day the police raided the friend's apartment and arrested Ms. McManus along with the friend. Because Ms. McManus was in that apartment, she lost her position as a schoolteacher. Then Ms. McManus decided that she might as well BECOME a prostitute. Something similar to that happened to Margo St. James. Anyway, here is what Ms. McManus says about one of her clients:

Quote "He was a well-known John in New York; he had a spinal disorder and was quite crippled and it was necessary to go to his home. There would have been no problem had he lived alone, but he stayed with his mother. The mother herself would often place the call for a girl since the man had difficulty holding a phone, and she would answer the door and usher the girl into his bedroom. Afterward she would politely offer a cup of coffee and attempt to make casual conversation. The whole experience was rather ghastly and strained but he paid a hundred dollars and most of the call girls felt morally obliged to see the handicapped Johns and be unusually kind to them." unquote

Now one has to consider that the first edition of this book was copyrighted in 1960, and one hundred dollars was a lot of money then.

Do you realize that each and every one of the parties to that transaction is defined as a criminal by the laws of just about every state in the United States? The mother, in particular, is actually committing the crime of "promoting prostitution" (pimping) which is a felony and can get a person a prison sentence of several years. Just ask Norma Jean.

[material omitted]

I am more than just a john. I am an ACTIVIST john. I began my activities in 1962. I was then a member of the American Civil liberties Union. The New York branch held a meeting which they advertised as an old-fashioned town- hall meeting at which anyone could discuss any subject. When I tried to advocate that the American Civil liberties Union take up the case for decriminalization of prostitution, I was hooted down, and the moderator of the meeting agreed with the hooter's denial of my right to speak there.

In 1964 I became a member of an organization called the New York City League for Sexual Freedom. This was then an organization of ALL sexual orientations which advocated and demonstrated for the rights of ALL sexual minorities. For example, on 8/23/64, I was the central figure in a demonstration for decriminalization of prostitution. On 9/19/64 I was one of the participants in a demonstration for homosexual rights.

At that time there was only one homosexual rights organization in New York City, namely the Mattachine Society. The next thing that happened was that a large number of homosexuals and lesbians from the Mattachine Society joined the New York City League for Sexual Freedom and took over. They elected their people to lead the New York City League for Sexual Freedom. Under their leadership, the League stopped advocating decriminalization of prostitution and, instead, began to advocate homosexual child-molesting.

That's when I started to be homophobic. I decided, as a means of protest, to mail out a large number of postcards denouncing one of the leaders of the Mattachine Society. I decided to denounce the Reverend Robert W. Wood of the United Church of Christ. He agreed with many people that the world is overpopulated, but then he went on the preach the doctrine of homosexual superiority. He said that God had created homosexuality in order to counter the population explosion. On the way he also said that abortion and sterilization were immoral. And, of course, like many homosexuals, he argued that prostitution was also immoral.

I specifically denounced him for insinuating that Jesus Christ was a homosexual. I think it is obvious that when a Christian clergyman claims that Jesus Christ was a homosexual, that clergyman is claiming that homosexuals are morally superior to heterosexuals.

I have also sent large numbers of postcards denouncing Edward I. Koch, formerly Mayor of New York. Koch wrote a letter which was published in the New York Post on October 19, 1979, page 25. In that letter Koch compared prostitutes to "garbage in the streets" and "odor, disease and rats." And yet Koch did not object to HOMOSEXUAL prostitution. When Frederick Richmond, Brooklyn's notorious homosexual child-molesting Congressman ran for re-election in 1978 Koch endorsed him. This was AFTER Richmond had been arrested for offering money for sex to an underaged boy.

In 1984, as I mentioned previously, I sued in New York State to have the laws on prostitution declared unconstitutional. I hired William Kunstler to represent me. I wish I had been aware at that time of Kunstler's interview in Playboy Magazine of October 1970. In that interview Kunstler denounced Playboy for "degrading" women by publishing nude photographs of them.

Anyway, it is obvious to me and any one else who has any knowledge of law that Kunster deliberately lost that case.

I have appeared on several T.V. talk shows. I appeared three times on the Morton Downey, Jr. talk show. Now, people has criticized Downey, but he always allowed both sides of a controversy to be represented, and WELL represented. Other talk shows only allow one side of a controversy.

In 1984 I appeared on the Phil Donahue talk show. He wouldn't allow me on the panel. Only Downey allowed that. Anyway, I was in the audience and I said: quote "Every sexual activity involving consenting adults is permitted nowadays except prostitution, and I don't think it is fair that we should be the only ones who are still being arrested for what we do in private."

Unquote:

Thank you for your patience and I also want to thank Norma Jean for giving me this opportunity to speak.







So, what is your excuse for the fact that your so-called anti-discrimination initiative discriminates against people like myself? What makes YOU, and others of your ilk, entitled to discriminate against me, while I am forbidden to discriminate against YOU.

Anyway, you haven't answered my other objections to your so-called anti- discrimination initiative, which I will repeat.



NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. UNFAIR PRACTICES PROHIBITED.

(2) It is a prohibited unfair practice for an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or person to interfere with any person in the exercise of any right protected by this act or to discharge, expel, or otherwise retaliate or discriminate against a person because he or she opposed any practice prohibited by this act or assisted in an action brought under it.


You see! If this initiative had been adopted you would not have been allowed to discriminate against anyone who had helped in the adoption of this initiative ("opposed any practice prohibited by this act"). But YOU could have been discriminated against because you favored practices prohibited by this act.

Here's another provision of the act to consider:




NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. REMEDIES--ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS.

(1) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act or omission in violation of this act shall have a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations and to recover the compensatory damages, including emotional distress, if any, sustained by such person, together with the costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expert fees and costs.



Look at that! Compare that with the ordinary procedure. When a person is injured by a drunk driver, that person doesn't ordinarily get attorney's fees and expert witness fees as part of the award. But even worse than that is the case where someone sues under the act and the defendant wins. The defendant does NOT get expert witness fees and attorney's fees. That is obviously unfair.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Huey Long, Governor of the State of Louisiana who was assassinated in 1935, once said: "If fascism ever comes to the United States it will be called anti-fascism.

Here we have something similar. Here we have a law mandating discrimination, and you call it an anti-discrimination law.

*************************************************************************

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - Lincoln

john1@prostitution.org (Fred Cherry)


return