"I do not understand how you're relating my constrained scenario to mistreatment occurring openly. If Mojo quietly accepts or reject potential clients through word of mouth, then the mistreatment is not apparent to society at large"
I'm not. I wasn't talking about MOHO as though he is an actual test case. My opposition to the hypothetical MOHO is due the rationale I just presented to you. You have said often that "IF he stays under the radar...yada, tada, yada". In order to cover the range of my position I also addressed the IF HE DOES NOT stay under the radar. I set out to summarize my full position so there would not be any future confusion.
I do not know what "constained scenario" you are referring to. My post was only to clarify my position on how I find the MOHOs of the world to be bigots and to diffentiate the kinds of harm such exclusion may engender and to agree as to how it may be minimized (i.e. by doing it in a low key, settling any grievances out of court without publicity and the like). If it is leaked to the public (or in this case, "dumped" on the public), then it simultaneously offends a huge segment of society for reasons I have given.
"So I don't see where you have expressed any harm additional to or different from the two kinds I sepecified on behalf of X, you, and me"
My post was a response to this which is why I put it in italics and quotes:
"Solon and I think that the specific harm to individuals, though, is unlikely and minimal."
Please note that my response does not say it is unlikely nor minimal. I consider the harm to be almost a certainty, and I definitely consider it actionable. My point was that harm to a single person is minimal in comparison to the pervasive and simultaneous harm agaonst millions when open discrimination is legitimized by overt or tacit acceptance.
I also said this:
"So you may have been awfully close to my position, and I commend you for such accuracy!"
I don't give out 100% grades! I gave you a 99 and I gave you my own words that I felt were less minimalistic of the individual damage than the words you chose. Anyway, I am telling you that MY words represent me better than your words represent me! Again...I think you did a very very good job. Again...I thank you!
There is no way I think that specific harm to individuals is unlikely. How can being asked about your sexual orientation and then being "referred" elsewhere be considered to have no emotionally harmful impact? Obvously, it can not. How long could MOHO keep this sort of thing under the radar before one of these individuals would get as lawyer and bring the bigotry out into the open? I don't know. But I am stressing the fact that public acceptance of such behaviour (MOHO wining his court case, for example) is a far greater level of harm that what occurs on an individual level "under the radar". |
