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 (74374)	9/10/2003 8:13:27 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The debate is about those legal requirements. And why those legal requirements exist is to enforce the fundamental right of all citizens to engage fairly and equitably in the marketplace without being discriminated against on the basis of certain immutable characteristics. No more redlining. No more "Jews and Catholics need ot apply." There is private life, and there is public life. In your private life, you can discriminate all you want to. But when you enter the public arena, when you want to use public services to run a business, you have to open your business to all comers who can afford to pay your prices and comply with your reasonable requirements. Which requirements can't condition the right to be served on race, religion, gender, etc. He has all the right in the world in the privacy of his home if he's not charging money and therefore not in business to give massages to whomever he wants to. But once he opens a business and starts taking paying customers and enters the public marketplace, he has to live by the rules of the marketplace. Why is that so hard for your to accept? Or do you think all the grocery stores in your neighborhood should be allowed to refuse to sell to you because they don't like people named Tim?

To: TimF who wrote (74374)	9/11/2003 6:24:39 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The debate is about those legal requirements. Yes, that's what the debate was about. I was trying to add an additional angle to the debate for perspective. If you're a massage therapist and you're looking for a job, you cannot effectively be employed by a small employer that has clients of both sexes such as a gym or a hospital. A large facility with, say, six or seven therapists could accommodate you and assign you only to male clients. A facility with only one or two wouldn't have the flexibility to accommodate you. That's not a legal issue but a purely business one. It's normal for employers to screen potential employees on the ability to do the job for which they're being considered. All Federal job applications, for example, ask you how much you're willing to travel. If you say you're not willing to travel, you won't be hired into a job that requires travel. Simple as that. It makes no difference if your reason for being unwilling to travel is a matter of conscience such as not spending nights away from family, or a fear of flying or claustrophobia or the schedule of your softball team. It's simply a business decision. My point didn't speak to the legal requirements at all. What I was trying to do is to avoid isolating the legal aspect in an ivory tower debate. Often people make issues on principle, I know I often do, just for the principle when in practice it's pretty moot because other considerations rule.