SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (74617)9/12/2003 5:39:21 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
asks should he be forced to have clients of both sexes or no clients at all

That's what he asked.

We have two different scenarios, though. We established early on that there were no existing laws to force any such thing. So then the question is whether it is desirable or appropriate to issue a regulation on this. That's what you seem to be addressing.

The other scenario is the hypothetical that we do have a law, duly passed for what the legislators considered to be good reason. The question then becomes do we give our masseur an exemption to that law. That is what Neo and I were discussing. Does this guy's principle warrant an exemption for that principle and that principle alone so that he has free association but nobody else does. Do we single out this principle for exemption over other principles? That's the question I was addressing.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News