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: one_less who wrote (77615)10/16/2003 6:48:39 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Typically, you did not respond to my post when the going got tough. You were doing not bad until you were asked to be honest about specifics. Oh well...

Society does not feel sexual arousal is inappropriate. Society believes in freedom of conscience. Society believes that people may think and feel as they choose. You come to this court expressing the opinion that how people feel and think has somewhat to do with your "rights". You ask us to interfere with standards of discrimination based on the premise that the provider has a right to impose how others think and feel. You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence of how others were causing you harm by "potentially" becoming aroused!

We were amused! It is so rare we get "conscience" claims where people will not allow poor minorities in their store!--and not because they might steal something and cause harm...but because they might feel wondrous!

We had one case where the store owner asked that he be allowd not to serve ex-cons. We considered it because there was claimed to be an inordinate potential for actuual harm. But of course potential and actual are different things. There was no good rational for harming citizens because one clown was a grocery bigot.

In the case of Moho where not even "potential" harm has been identified, we find the application frivolous!

Next.

Case dismissed...get the Hell out of here!