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 (77155)	10/10/2003 9:18:35 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It wouldn't be worth the intrusiveness entailed, for the government to ferret out people discriminating in their small businesses (as I said ages and ages ago). That doesn't mean government "should" even tacitly approve such behavior, but it does mean that if someone wanted to discriminate quietly, then they could do so (for whatever their personal motivation). I don't think the personal motivation of the discriminator matters much. I doubt we could have a loophole in the laws to allow for discrimination based on religion (practically- I mean, obviously we could have anything we want in theory- but I'm talking about what would work best)- it would be too disruptive to our society. I think the message our law sends pretty clearly is that you may discriminate in your private life, but not in your business life- a nice compromise, I like it- I can see why people wouldn't, if they want to discriminate, but from a utilitarian perspective it's hard to justify their position.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77155)	10/10/2003 11:15:27 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

But I think that discrimination doesn't necessarily trump everything, at least not at the margins. Mojo is operating at the margins. But there is one thing I think you don't give enough credence to. Mojo has DELIBERATELY CHOSEN to operate at the margin. Nobody put him there. He put himself there. There are thousands of occupations he could engage in that wouldn't impact his sensitivities and wouldn't force him to make a choice to be discriminatory. But no. He has to choose one of only a very few professions (I suppose og-gyn would be another) where he feels he cannot give service without discrimination. And he expects society, rather than him, to do the adjusting. It's as though Madelyn Murray O'Hair had enrolled in Oral Roberts University and then wanted to be excluded from any class where God was mentioned. Well, DUH. If the situation were one where Mojo had minimal control--say he had been drafted into an army in a very liberal nation that had eliminated all gender diffeentiation and had assigned him to live with a female roommate--I would have more sympathy for his position. But that's not the case. He volutarily chose, decided, to select one of the few professions where he knew he would have to discriminate or violate his beliefs. It's as though I signed a contract as the public defender and then said I have a hatred of drugs and alcohol and so refuse to defend anybody accused of a drug or alcohol related offense (for the uninformed, at least half and probably many more public defense cases involve drugs or alcohol). Uh, give me a break. You appear to be accepting the scenario as a given, so that there is nothing to do but either accede to Mojo's sensitivities or violate them. I'm suggesting that he knowingly created this situation and it's not society's job to bend its rules to get him out of it until he has FIRST done all he reasonably can on his own to get out of it. Which means finding another profession. And no, that's not a cop out. It's a statement of principle that individuals are primarily responsible for what they do with their lives and for having the primary responsibility of getting themselves out of the messes they hve gotten themselves in.