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: Lane3 who wrote (21157)	8/9/2001 1:45:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I'm not arguing for affirmative action. I know you where not arguing for it. I mentioned it as an exception to my general point that anti-discrimination laws can decrease actualy bigotry (rather then just public expressions of it, or using it to motivate business decisions) How would you like to go to a 7-11 and not be allowed in to buy milk for your kids. If an apartment is for rent or a house is for sale and the applicant is otherwise qualified, religion or race or gender or whatever shouldn't deny that individual access. I would not like it at all, but i don't have a natural or constitutional right to force other people to sell me their goods or services or otherwise associate with me. No, I don't think freedom of association allows a seller to say he won't sell to someone on that basis. The civil rights of the purchaser are of greater importance. On a purely practical basis maybe I could agree with that. As a matter of principle I do not. I can not consider them of greater importance because I do not even recognize their existance as other then a purely legally granted right. IMO I have no right to force others to associate with me or sell me goods or services. It may be the right and decent thing for them to do this. It is unfair for them to discriminate against me or others for reasons like skin color or religious affiliation, but i don't have a right to force others to be fair and decent. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (21157)	8/9/2001 1:48:13 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree completely with you. The stickier question, of course, comes when you have other bases for refusing, say, to rent to somebody. For example, singles apartment blocks that refuse to rent to married people; adults only housing that refuse to rent to families with children; single womens housing that refuses to rent to men; senior housing that refuses to rent to people under 50; landlords with religious principles who refuse to rent to persons of deviant lifestyles; etc. Should someone be able to refuse to rent to a person with a tattoo, say? How about a convicted sex offender? Should we allow any basis for not renting to a person other than that they can't come up with the down payment and deposit? Or should a landlord be required to rent to every person who comes in with first, last, and deposit and won't overload the capacity of the apartment (for example, not renting a one-bedroom apartment to a family of eight)?