Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (21114)	8/9/2001 12:34:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I would have no problems with protests or boycotts against this bigotry but I'm not sure the force of law should be brought against someone for this type of thing. You weren't alive in the days when blacks couldn't get in their car and take a road trip to visit granny without having to deal with the fact that there might be no place along the road where they could stop for food or stay overnight or even pee. If you had, you might feel differently. I'm every bit as libertarian as you, but there have to be limits to oppression under the umbrella of free association. I recognize that this kind of government interference can take on a life of its own, go too far, and get into judgments that the government is not very well equipped to deal with. Perhaps the cure is as bad as the disease. But you cannot deny that allowing wholesale exclusion is also a rights issue for those being excluded, not just a social issue. Karen

To: TimF who wrote (21114)	8/9/2001 4:43:32 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Private bigots should be able to do anything they want. If there is absolutely no nexus with government money, it is hard for me to see the support to interfere. I (alas) would have had to decide all the travel cases differently. The constitution does not support interfering with bigots, unless they are government bigots.

To: TimF who wrote (21114)	8/9/2001 5:46:28 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes, I do not take a libertarian position on this. Take a corporation. For purposes of limiting personal liability, a fictitious person has been created, with a board acting as "guardian". In most instances, it is publicly traded, and therefore owned by numerous shareholders, particularly in institutions like pension funds. In whom does a right of property so absolute as to permit material harm to an individual on grounds of religious bigotry subsist? The personnel director, a mere functionary? Of course not. What are we honoring when we say "do as you will"?