SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (77328)10/10/2003 8:22:47 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Well, of course she can quit. Or she can be fired. No, you can't force her to perform a service, any more than you can force a waitress to serve a given customer a cup of coffee, or force an auto mechanic to fix a specific car. The option to quit is always a choice. Or the option to refuse and accept being fired.



To: Lane3 who wrote (77328)10/10/2003 8:23:20 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
You can't force people to do things, but you can make the consequences for failing to do things pretty horrible. Because of my "conscience" (for example)I do not want to pay taxes- because they support things against my moral principles. Somehow I think the consequences for this stand are going to be fairly unpleasant. By "conscience" I do not feel able to serve Jews, and I run a small catering business. Jews killed Christ (or at least that's what I believe for teh sake of this hypothetical) and thus I cannot serve them. The consequences for my stand may be fairly severe. I could be sued. I might find my name all over the paper. Now I have every "right" to make my stand (no one can stop you from making your stand) but I don't have a "right" to constrain the consequences for my stand. I think this argument comes down to the fact that the minority viewpoint, and especially the extreme minority viewpoint, doesn't like to be constrained by the consequences that result from actions motivated by extreme beliefs. The folks with extreme beliefs may not believe they are extreme, but the fact that they have to go against prevailing attitudes and laws, makes it quite clear that they are a marginalized minority.

Does society have the "right" to marginalize certain groups of people? If "right" means that society can do it (and that's all right means to me) then yes, society can, and has always, chosen to marginalize certain groups. Sometimes the groups society marginalizes makes a certain amount of utilitarian sense, and sometimes (imo) it doesn't. When you maginalize people who want to throw a spanner into the machinery (laws) we use to break down discrimination, I find that useful. I don't want to see them persecuted (I don't even want to see the clan persecuted) but I really am not bothered by seeing them marginalized, and pressured to conform. Society is all about conforming, it's just a question of what mold we conform to. Society pressuring us to conform to an anti-discrimination model, at least in the business world, is better than a model that allows such discrimination to flourish. But of course the choice of model is going to be a personal decision- but no matter what is chosen, some social model is being chosen, even if only by default.