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 (77129)	10/9/2003 7:07:27 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Speculation on some of the issues that you mention could, if done right (which recent posts here make a dubious proposition) be interesting. But I don't agree that there is much to argue about in whether in the absence of any laws or regulations to the contrary there is anything fundamentally wrong or unjust in a business owner, for whatever or no reasons, limiting their services in any way they choose. If for some reason I wanted to restrict my law practice to redheads, would there be anything to discuss in that?

To: Lane3 who wrote (77129)	10/9/2003 7:11:40 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"I, however, have been more interested in whether Jewel's claim in forming the hypothetical that Mojo is noble in his pursuit or not, whether it is right and just and fair, or not. Whether it is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing for society. I was wrong to claim that he was noble and that this should be acknowledged by anyone but me. I was wrong to insist that others see it as a Good Thing for society. I was wrong to argue against people who see it as a bad thing (except for the people who concocted there own versions to make it bad. Even that would be better ignored). The only valid issue for this discussion is "whether it is right and just and fair, or not." The other things are important to me but a distraction that halts progress on the purpose of the freedom of conscience discussion. Thanks to Neocon for indirectly pointing me in the right direction .... after he made me beg for guidance. Good to see you back in your skin.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77129)	10/9/2003 7:33:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If we grant conscientious objector status to the conscientiously chaste, does that imply that public beaches might need to provide separate sections for the bikini-averse? Or that the NFL should set up a team of two just for those who are averse to reporters in the locker rooms? Or sex-segregated hospitals? No. There is a difference between allowing Mojo to have consensual interactions and business dealings with his customers under conditions and terms that they both accept, and forcing conditions and terms on an unwilling party. This difference is particularly strong in the NFL case because the NFL is a private business. The hospital may or may not be a private institution. Another distinction is that it provides a service necessary to protect someone's life. Earlier in the conversation some of the "Mojo defenders" where using that difference as justification for requiring that doctors treat either sex. Even if it falls short of justifying that requirement (and I'm not sure that it does), I don't see how it justifies the reverse, a requirement that certain hospitals (or sections of hospitals) treat only one sex. In the case of the public beaches I don't see how even if you accept the right of the "conscientiously chaste" to not perform certain intimate services on someone where there may be sexual arousal, how that would translate to an affirmative duty of the state to create beach areas where they might be safe from such arousal. A closer equivalent would be more the right of a small private beach owner to allow only men or women in to the beach or to have segregated sections, even if he charges for admission to the beach. Tim