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 (77315)	10/11/2003 10:13:53 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

What are the competing claims? The right of one individual to use the power of the state to coerce another individual? There has to be some justification beyond the desire of the consumer to get what he wants, to justify the intervention of the state. There was no prior contract. No one would begrudge a woman refusing a male roommate, so it cannot be discrimination per se, but whether it is baneful. What right is the plaintiff vindicating? And why should the state weigh in one her side? Sorry, it still comes down to state policy versus individual conscience. As I said, I do not think that conscience claims are trump cards, there are still things to weigh, but they must be treated with care........