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: The Philosopher who wrote (77253)	10/10/2003 3:06:04 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Finally, a good presentation of the other side! I think you may be onto something, but I want to mull over the final step. Still, good show........

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77253)	10/10/2003 3:17:40 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

The primary burden is on the citizen claiming an exemption to show that they have no reasonable alternative That's a good point, one that seemed to have escaped me. Thanks for saying it so directly. The way exemptions usually get codified is in the law from which they are exempt. The discrimination laws or any regulation of massage therapy or whatever could be amended to specifically exempt the conscientious chaste from coverage. Mojo can lobby for that if he wants. At the risk of the stigma of speculation, I opine that the chance of such laws being passed is right there next to zero, but you never know how big an interest group that might be. There may be many people in that category who would support it in the hopes that they could parlay that into exemptions for their own matters of conscience. Whether the resulting laws and regulations would pass constitutional muster is another matter for speculation.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77253)	10/10/2003 3:28:32 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

A couple of things have already occurred to me: In the ordinary course of affairs, discrimination suits arise due to complaints. Suppose, then, that Mojo had been plying his trade, according to his lights, unmolested<g>, for a dozen years, and it was his only source of income. Then someone complains, and he is hauled into court. Now, I acknowledge that the ruling may go against him, but let us look at the factors to be taken into account. If the ruling is against him, he will either have to violate his conscience or have to give up his livelihood. This is not answerable by a "tough tata" approach. Suppose that Mojo is a personal trainer, and takes on all comers in that capacity, but will only perform massage services for those clients he is comfortable with, without his specifying qualifications any more explicitly. Suppose someone discerns a pattern. In response, Mojo heads off a discrimination suit by refusing to massage any client. Suppose that he loses a substantial number of clients on that account, since most of his business counted on the massages. Is it a sufficient answer to say "You should have thought of that", when it arose in a manner that seemed no one's business? Suppose that Mojo started out working for a sports team, and therefore the issue of sexuality never arose. But he is forced to move to the desert for his health, and the Arizona teams do not need his services. The only trade he has is massage, but he would be forced to violate conscience if he could not restrict himself. Again, I do not think "tough stuff" is a sufficient answer. If a Muslim prisoner objects to having to eat pork in prison, no one says "tough, you shouldn't have been a criminal", they provide an alternative menu. I am afraid that point 6 is too weak, but it may be relevant as a consideration, if not as a trump.........

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77253)	10/10/2003 4:04:24 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Here are a few more details on the incident at Abington Hospital. It seems that this new intelligence is contrary to my earlier speculation that the emergency already existed at the time of the husband's initial demands. <<The hospital, citing patient and personnel confidentiality, has disclosed few details of the incident, but Clark revealed what the hospital told his group. According to Clark, the woman was brought to the hospital while in labor. Hospital officials described her husband as a "belligerent" man who demanded black employees not help his wife. Later, as the woman developed complications, the husband also asked black surgeons to stay away, Clark said, and a sign was eventually placed on the woman's door asking anyone of "color" to check with a nearby nurses' station before entering the room. NAACP leaders were notified of the incident Sept. 13 - the same week the incident occurred - and hospital Vice President Richard Montalbano attended the chapter's Sept. 15 meeting to discuss details surrounding the incident. But Clark said Montalbano was unable to answer some remaining questions, prompting another meeting with officials.>>