The Castle Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : The Castle

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (3446)	6/3/2004 9:13:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 7936

If a specific prohibition is overturned but a wider range of prohibitions is not I wouldn't say you are sanctioning anything. If there was no specific prohibition but rather something more general was prohibited and you make a specific exemption then you have a better argument but I still don't think you would necessarily be supporting doing what the exception allows. I do see how that could be one reason you would make an exemption, and I also see how people could see that reason as being the real one even if it isn't. Going back to drugs as an example. Lets assume a specific state law outlaws marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and several other drugs. Then you modify the law to create an exemption for marijuana. I don't see that as being the same as sanctioning marijuana use even though many people might look at it that way. I'm against most anti-discrimination laws that apply to the private sector as a matter of principle anyway but that's a separate even if related topic. Even if I saw something close to the current anti-discrimination legal regime to be a good idea I don't see how placing some limits on the application of that good idea would be a bad thing, whether or not it is considered to be "sanctioning discrimination by law". If such limits on government reach are to be considered sanctioning something by law, then I think a lot of these things need to be sanctioned by law. The problem here is you have two conflicting principles, freedom of association, and anti-discrimination. I see the first as being more important, but even if you see the 2nd as more important I think there would be some point where you wouldn't want it to trample on the 1st. How do we determine that point? Do we do it on a case by case basis by the director of the state Division on Civil Rights? I think having the law grant exemptions would probably be a better idea. But I'm open to suggestions about other possible methods. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next