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 (77690)	10/17/2003 11:05:27 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The Court is ready to rule. Moho..Please approach the bench with counsel. This Court entertained Moho's request to be exempted from the discrimination laws on the basis of freedom of conscience. Moho claims that homosexuals and women are more likely to be aroused while receiving a therapeutic massage. By filtering and segregating his clients he hopes to avoid any possibility of client arousal. The Civil Liberties opposition to his request produced compelling data and innumerable witnesses to show that clients are not injured by their own arousal. The only client concern was that Moho operate in a professional manner and avoid any attempts to sexualize what is a non-sexual event. Further, it was demonstrated that sexual arousal in a therapeutic setting is rare, and would be mostly independent of gender. Dr. Rubby testified that repeated touching and stroking can cause arousal. Indeed, it does not matter who is doing the touching. It could be a pair of robot hands. But again, any arousal is rare unless it is initiated or created by an unethical or ill-trained service provider. It has not been demonstrated that the potential for inappropriate arousal requires to be addressed through extraordinary measures. The issue before the court is a Freedom of Conscience issue. It is about Moho's belief that he is harmed when another becomes aroused in his presence. You went so far, Moho, as to tell this Court that you avert your eyes from women when passing on the street in an effort to avoid arousing women. You have repeatedly spoken to this Court of a harm that you fear will come to you. But weeks of sincere questioning has failed to draw a straight unequivocal answer from you as to the nature of this harm. Instead you have spoken about the violation of your belief statement, and such. The Court is not informed by puerile tautologies. This Court, however, recognizes the presence of sincere concern in spite of your inability to articulate it. But the concern appears to be for yourself and not for the client. Your aversion of your eyes from women on the street is clearly to protect your own arousal which you clearly associate with impurity. There is a certain self absorption implied by such behaviour which the Court will simply note. The arousal of others is not of your business, nor concern. Even in your practice, your job is to provide therapy and to ensure through your training and skills that you do not enable inappropriate arousal or sexual activity. There is a fiduciary trust which protects the client from unethical and unscrupulous therapists. Segregating clients is an unnecessary evil. You are trained to competency standards and you are compelled by society to abjure from unethical conduct in the performance of your work. Any consideration on behalf of this Court would be a white elephant which would outgrow the food supply. The baker would turn aside women to prevent arousal. A football player would insist that no women or homosexuals be allowed to attend because it is well known that some people find them sexy and might become aroused. Thousands of actors and actresses who are objects of titillating thoughts would demand that their movies and videos be given out only to same sex--unless they are homosexuals. Musicians would demand that the audience be segregated so that arousal is minimized. The silliness would never end. And the silliness is not merely silly--it is antithetical to the fundamental rights and freedoms which every citizen relies on to safeguard them from the capricious whims of the deranged and the malicious manipulations of the ignorant. This court will not assist such bigotry--regardless that Mr. Moho claims his bigotry serves a high and moral purpose. The application for the right to modify the discrimination laws in the confines of the business operating as Moho, Inc. Is denied. Mr. Moho...you are instructed to serve all clients on an equal basis without regard to colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other discriminatory practices directed against identifiable groups. You are laughing Mr. Moho. And you are insulting this Court. Stop it immediately or you will be cited for contempt. ...Now...Let it be clearly understood. If you appear before this court to answer to any violation of this order, it will not be a matter for levity. That is all... All Rise...