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: one_less who wrote (75066)	9/18/2003 6:47:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Why not protections for freedom of conscience?... I already said I support protection for freedom on conscience. No one should ever be forced to do anything against his genuine conscience.

To: one_less who wrote (75066)	9/18/2003 11:48:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

"Yes, sometimes it happens. But if it doesn't, you need to be ready to pay the penalty." Of course, I have not argued otherwise. Oh, come on. When I suggested that the penalty was not working as a masseur you rejected that out of hand. When I suggested that the penalty could be having to take on a different aspect, like teaching, you paid no never mind. All along you have argued that he should pay no penalty, that he should be allowed to go right on massaging whoever he wants to and rejecting whoever he wants to on the sole basis of gender or perceived sexual orientation without paying any prince of any kind. You want what Bonhoeffer, I think it was, called cheap grace.