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: Neocon who wrote (77114)	10/9/2003 5:57:12 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

#2 does. The freedom of conscience issue supports mojo on most of the other ethics statements and affirms that he is not discriminating systematically against women, since he sells oils and such out of the front of his shop to whoever is interested, and he refers women to providers who hold his view such as cousin myrna. Massage therapists shall: 1. Demonstrate commitment to provide the highest quality massage therapy/bodywork to those who seek their professional service. 2. Acknowledge the inherent worth and individuality of each person by not discriminating or behaving in any prejudicial manner with clients and/or colleagues. 3. Demonstrate professional excellence through regular self-assessment of strengths, limitations, and effectiveness by continued education and training. 4. Acknowledge the confidential nature of the professional relationship with clients and respect each client's right to privacy. 5. Conduct all business and professional activities within their scope of practice, the law of the land, and project a professional image. 6. Refrain from engaging in any sexual conduct or sexual activities involving their clients. 7Accept responsibility to do no harm to the physical, mental and emotional well-being of self, clients, and associates.

To: Neocon who wrote (77114)	10/9/2003 6:09:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

In our hypothetical, we have been accepting that discrimination in the provision of a public service is illegal. Otherwise, there's nothing in the hypothetical to discuss. If, for example, Mojo were a vet who refused to treat cats, there's no issue. There is only an issue here if we accept that what he wants to do is illegal. Whether the law is right, of course, is another question. But the answer to an unjust law, as we have known since the days of the Crito and had reaffirmed most recently by Martin Luther King, is to seek their revision, but while they exist either to obey them, or to openly disobey them AND OPENLY ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. Those who accept the protection of the laws they like must also accept the restrictions of the laws they don't. Mojo wants not to seek a change in the law, but to disobey the law and suffer no consequence. That is an option I am not willing to offer him, because once that option becomes acceptable the rule of law is at an end. I am, frankly, surprised to find you arguing against that propositon, even implicitly.