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: one_less who wrote (77617)	10/16/2003 7:13:03 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"you can not relate to harm that associated with someone being forced to participate in something that violates their core view of ethical experience." Nobody is forcing you to do anything except follow the laws of non-discrimination in a public business against minorities, etc. If you wish to have an exemption from normal social process you must prove why your belief is special and entitling you to harm others. I get harmed thousands of times a day. Every person in every line of work gets harmed by jerks, fools, tyrants, etc. The person at McDonald's gets harmed far more than Moho does by all kinds of people. Does the Court support her right to stop serving people due to their colour or sexual orientation? NO? That would be bigotry. I asked you what was the nature of your harm? Let me help you. I will hypothesize the client. I will try to be a little fairer than you. The client is neither straight nor gay, male nor female; he/she is anonymous and unknown. He/she just wants a massage. IF causing sexual arousal is harmful or a SIN, then he/she would be more than harmed to be prejudged as one likely to cause harm. An analogy would be a decent human being walking into a shopping mall and having some mindless goons take his arm and escort him out because the owner (Moho) is afraid they MIGHT harm him based on their colour, or height, or socks. And his fear is not about harm as harm is normally assessed. NO! He fears they might have their own thoughts and feelings. And why does this harm the owner? Who knows! Perhaps Jewels knows! :-)