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 (74437)	9/11/2003 2:53:10 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

The thought of emergency people refusing to help because of the type of person involved is totally unacceptable. Can you imagine? A fireman refusing to save a house because it was owned by blacks. An EMT refusing to save a man's life because he was gay. That doesn't work at all. Your massage person could easily do exactly what they wanted to do - at least in the case of the opposite sex, by simply claiming they were too busy to treat the people they did not want to treat. Lots of prejudice goes on these days, under mantles of disguise, and, imo there is no way to root it out, except by having thought police - which is an even greater problem then underground prejudice. The only problem your massage person would have is if they put out a sign refusing to treat a certain kind of person- that, imo, would be a mistake given the history of the civil rights movement, and our experience with signs that dealt with not treating people. This whole discussion has made me wonder about OB-GYN doctors. Can a man demand to see one, even though he doesn't have the equipment the doctor specializes in? I wonder if they would give him the appointment and then refer him to a shrink? :-)

To: Lane3 who wrote (74437)	9/11/2003 4:02:45 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I've been trying to make the point that it's one thing to deny service based on behavior and another to deny service to a whole category of people. This is one of those issues that really separates people in some deep way. A person who would decline to provide service to someone on the basis of their sex, race, straight/gay status, religion is so.... other to me, in the realm of deciding what is decent, humane behavior, that it's like they're a Martian. A question for some (not you) would be: Would this doctor who would deny treatment to gays deny it to a priest he thought was probably a homosexual (but probably a celibate one; that is, one whose sexual thoughts involve males, and masturbatory fantasies involve males, but who -- the doctor believes -- doesn't have partners)? How about a pediatrician who guesses that a nine year old boy is gay, that is, is clearly destined to be gay. Should he wait until the child reaches puberty to refuse to treat him, or is it okay to turn him away because the kid is extremely effeminate and the boy's mother is considering sending him to private school because she has been sure since he was three (for good reason) that he was going to be gay, and he is already being tormented mercilessly at school, being called a faggot, etc.?