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: Neocon who wrote (74242)	9/10/2003 12:52:41 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If a business owner 'believes' that certain behaviors are sinful, or that he should disassociate him self with certain types of persons on religious grounds, does he have the right to refuse to interact with those types in the performance of his daily affairs as a matter of conscience. For example can a masseuse refuse to massage women customers? etc. Is this not a "freedom of conscience" issue?

To: Neocon who wrote (74242)	9/10/2003 1:22:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is probably the rationale for much of the 1st amendment but that doesn't mean it was part of the amendment. In the 2nd amendment the rationale is stated as part of the amendment but the rationale itself is not a legal requirement or prohibition. The right to keep and bear arms was recognized at least partially for the reason that it would help in the creation of a militia, but that doesn't mean the 2nd amendment is in any way limited to the militia because the right is stated as "the right of the people". So even where the rationale is actually part of the amendment it doesn't change the amendment itself. If anything that supports the rationale can be considered an active, enforceable part of the amendment the constitution becomes so twistable that it can mean almost anything, and so effectively it means almost nothing. Tim