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: E who wrote (77324)	10/11/2003 6:01:45 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi, E. I think anyone should be able to take any pill they want to; and I think people should do as they choose in their home. However, offering services to the public is another matter. In the interest that fundamental human equality under the Constitution be acknowledged and respected, and in the interest that identifiable groups in society not be marginalized by prejudicial mistreatment...the law has evolved to limit such prejudice for the benefit of all. Thus, it always allows people to discriminate against individuals for "icky" reasons (the individual may, of course, seek legal clarification and possible redress). But society does not tolerate a check-out girl (for instance) for never serving Chinese customers in her line because they make her feel "icky" (perhaps a phobia, or an unconscious mental or emotional association). So when someone is offering services to the public they are expected to accomodate the public on an equal basis. Surely, a dental hygenist might contrive to avoid personally cleaning the teeth of an individual who makes her feel uncomfortable with suggestive movements of his ears, but if she is turning away ALL Jews, or gays, or Christians, or Muslims because they ALL make her feel "icky" then she will get sued and she will lose. There is a presumption that people are not "icky" merely because they are a certain race, colour, or sexual orientation. "Ickyness" is an individual trait. Thus, if this hygenist is discriminating against ALL Jews because of ickyness, then the ickyness is presumed to be within her, and she would be considered by reasonable people to be unsuited to working with the public. In the case of massage therapy, it happens to be about rubbing toes and shoulders. It is not about rubbing the genitals. People who choose any profession are agreeing to offer services to the public without discrimination as to group characteristics. Certainly, they can discriminate. But there is something ugly about a doctor, a dentist, a pschiatrist, a grocer, or a massage therapist who sees all black skin as "icky" or all heterosexual skin as "icky"...or whatever. Shaming entire groups by discriminating on an irrelevent basis is divisive and against the social contract. It ought to be punished. So you don't need to allow a Jew in your car....but you must allow him on the public bus you drive, and you must let him order a meal in your restaurant--unless you have a reason unconnected to his religion or race (perhaps he is obnoxious or rude or doesn't meet the dress code). So people can be forced into running their businesses in accordance with standards and regulations which are set for that Industry. Those who do not comply will have action taken against them to the extent of the law. If there is disagreement, then the courts are the final judge. So even though I may find it icky to serve a Chinese in a restaurant or to massage a black in a massage parlour...I must do these things or face the legitimate consequences. Fortunately, we choose the jobs we wish to do. People with fear of heights do not choose to be window washers and then refuse to do windows more than 33 inches off the ground. So how are things?