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 (76078)	10/1/2003 7:09:48 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I meant a proper claim as a matter of justice or natural rights not of law." Well...that is the point. You and I don't agree on what a "proper claim" is. Therefore we defer to law which represents the grievances of all people. The law takes a dim view of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, gender, or sexual orientation. So do I. And I helped make it so. "Sure we live in a democracy but that doesn't mean that individuals can't state their opinions and principles or even try to get laws passed supporting those ideas" I agree. "I would have thought that this would have gone without saying but apparently it does not." I would have thought so, too...and I have found no evidence in any posts (other than Jewels's) to indicate otherwise. "I do not think it makes logical sense to talk about A causing harm to B unless A actually causes something to happen to B." Don't be silly. If I go into a grocery store and the clerk says that he won't serve me because I am a homosexual--do you think it does me no harm? Do you think if I drive a hundred miles into a city to see a hockey game and the moralist at the door turns me away because I am a woman or a heterosexual that I do not feel harmed?? That is silly. It is easy to harm someone without breaking the law.

To: TimF who wrote (76078)	10/1/2003 7:18:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes it could be said that someone's denial of service causes harm but I only think that makes sense if they have a proper right to that service. I think there would be harm in this case if someone went to Mojo's establishment for a scheduled appointment and was turned away because of sex or sexual orientation. And particularly if he was told that in a less than tactful way. If you have an appointment, or if you walk into an establishment that says "no appointment necessary," you have a reasonable expectation of service. The harm may be insignificant or significant. If you took a day off from work and struggled with your back pain to get there, you've been harmed. If Mojo fails to deal with this potential in some constructive way, he is wrong.