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 (76019)	10/1/2003 5:13:48 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It's all in the perception- and how we slant the fact of the hypothetical. What if mojo is the only masseur around? What if the client can't get to another one? Then it is a huge loss- especially if the person involved is in pain, and needs the massage for medical reasons. You just don't KNOW. And the precedent set by refusing to serve people based on their group is a bad one- so as public policy it is much worse than Auntie K- or one could so argue. Each client would have individual circumstances- and some of them could be quite compelling- by refusing whole classes of people, our masseur is denying service to possibly very needy clients.

To: TimF who wrote (76019)	10/1/2003 5:15:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

There are a lot of differences. If I didn't want differences, I would have had to come up with a scenario about a masseur who didn't want to massage women and gays. I picked what I thought were the key factors and I made the scenarios parallel. I also tried to put myself in a position of being attacked as Jewel perceived he was, an additional parallel. If one were so inclined, one could look at the parallels, which I itemized, and see the message. If one wanted to focus on the differences and call it a failed experiment, one could do that, too.

To: TimF who wrote (76019)	10/1/2003 5:21:57 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Anyone who Mojo doesn't want to take on as a client can just go to another masseur with no real loss" Well...if Auntie is kicked out of the wedding she cannot simply substitute one down the street! But Moho can always stop being prejudicial and maintain his license even if he is fined for an infraction. Moho could do any job he is qualified for. Society does not owe Moho a particular job in a particular way. A wedding guest cannot simply wander into another wedding with merit. It may be argued that Government is sometimes too intrusive into the business of individuals. And sometimes they are. But the rationale for intrusiveness is to prevent the petty discrimination of those who would deny important services to people and who would inconvenience and insult them over their personal prejudice. Society normally will listen to reasonable claims for (in this case) exclusion. But capricious claims will generally be dismissed. I have already said that I agree with a service provider refusing to see clients when he believes he is unqualified to reasonably guarantee that he will not breech client trust or engage in misconduct. So I support Moho. But I consider him mentally disturbed...and would never ever ever refer anyone to his "services".