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 (77482)	10/13/2003 2:44:59 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

The harm to Jenny the bath house servant, who is operating on a 'freedom of conscience' issue can be demonstrated without much effort if she is forced into a compromise of ethic. Whether she stays on the job or is forced out of work she would be harmed unless she is permitted the freedom to operate according to her conscience. However, the dozens of attempts to define legitimate harm done by those operating according to their conscience have failed.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77482)	10/13/2003 2:49:22 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The question is: if someone damages someone else, what is a claim of freedom of conscience worth as a defense? Basically, diddley. Vis a vis government, you have some argument that you had a right to break a law. Against injuring somebody, good luck. I suppose some lawyer could persuade some jury somewhere to accept that, but not in my court.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77482)	10/13/2003 3:56:35 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I will answer you straight :-) Because our masseur is discriminating against people (basically starting out contrary to the basic assumptions people in our society make- in that most people assume they will NOT be discriminated against) our masseur has a heightened duty (imo) to make sure he doesn't make contracts that he will have to vitiate, to the inconvenience of potential clients, due to his "scruples" that they have no way to anticipate. Only Mojo has a clue as to his heightened scrupulousness- thus Mojo must make very very sure that he doesn't cause extra harm due to his out of the ordinary "ethical" requirements. Mojo is, already, either breaking the law, or very close to breaking the law (and the social ethical expectations of most people in our society), therefore it seems to me if he really IS worried about being ethical, he would worry about the extra harm he might cause. He ought to be worried about the harm he causes by discriminating too- although of course the other harm of some sort of sexual thing outweighs the harm of his discriminations, at least he ought to be aware of it- if he was really ethical- and not merely a crank.