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 (77256)	10/10/2003 4:10:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. Seems to me that this is relevant only if he began his career prior to the effective date of the laws upon which the suit is based--whether he could reasonably be expected to have anticipate a potential suit at the time he committed to his trade.

To: Neocon who wrote (77256)	10/10/2003 4:23:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. Actually, that is a perfectly valid answer. Suppose a small business owner has been operating for years illegally failing to hire any black employees, and finally gets caught by a sting operation carried out by the NAACP. (Not a hypothetical, but an actual situation.) He says I have a conscientious opposition to hiring blacks. But this is my livelihood, so I should be allowed to keep operating this way. Your response?? 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. Yes, because the government creates the menu and has total control over the situation. But if the guy walked into Tony's Ribs where the only item on the menu was pork ribs and claimed he had a right to be served there but to be served a non-pork dish, sorry, buddy, find somewhere else to eat.

To: Neocon who wrote (77256)	10/10/2003 4:50:12 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

”The primary burden is on the citizen claiming an exemption to show that they have no reasonable alternative, not merely that the alternatives available to them under the law are less desirable options than those they prefer to pursue.” This has been the view point of Karen from the start. I don’t take it for granted that an external person or system automatically determines the suitability of a free lance business operator to perform his work. It must be proven by the state that the worker is unlawfully discriminating on the basis of some protected status. This industry is intertwined with a parallel erotic industry that is founded on the sexualizing aspects of the service. We can’t collect valid data on legitimate service providers, because when we identify one that is practicing the more erotic stuff they are classified as not-legitimate, or prostitutional. The harmfulness of that is controversial so even though we thoroughly discussed that previously, we have since determined it some what of a tangential issue. The discrimination on gender issue is not a simple issue. If as in your proposition mojo had previously been a sports trainer he might claim that women didn’t benefit enough because of some male athete specialty that he performed. I think this would be an easier case to win for mojo’s opposition. Now he is clearly stating that women in a systematic way could not benefit by good masseur services. However, mojo is identifying an issue of conscience that involves intimate, private and personal core values that can unnecessarily be violated in the process. The target of mojo’s perspective is not women it is the belief system that core values should not be violated unnecessarily. In his business operation he has demonstrated that it isn’t necessary. Women are not excluded or stigmatized as culprits since his colleagues are also women and hold the same belief system. Men and women are included in the service delivery without risk of compromising their core values system. And mojo himself interacts and provides other services that do not compromise this core values system, when he sells oils and such from the front of his business.