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: Solon who wrote (80764)	6/25/2004 1:22:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

TIM...Drop the facade...OKAY?? Discrimination is NOT illegal. You bloody well know that. Certain specifically defined forms of discrimination which disenfranchise citizenship rights on the basis of color, religion, and so forth--THEY are illegal. I was using "discrimination" to mean such specifically defined forms of discrimination. We both know that other forms are not illegal. If you have a word or even a short phrase to use instead of "discrimination", I'd probably be willing to use it but "Certain specifically defined forms of discrimination which disenfranchise citizenship rights on the basis of color, religion, and so forth" doesn't cut it, both because it is too long and because many of these illegal forms of discrimination don't disenfranchise citizenship rights when they are done by private individuals and don't include an assault on anyone. My point was that these "Certain specifically defined forms of discrimination" are definitely not unconstitutional from private individuals. The constitution could be said to forbid the government to treat people different based on "color, religion, and so forth" but it doesn't forbid such different treatment by individuals. Specific laws forbid such actions, so the discriminatory actions could be said to be "illegal" but not "unconstitutional". At least not in the US. I suppose its possible that the Canadian constitution actually makes such demands of private citizens. I don't know a lot about Canada's constitution. I am not up to scratch on when such negligence is considered criminal. Even if the law considers it to be criminal negligence it isn't abuse by the definition of the word abuse. You have to actively do something to someone to abuse them. Ignoring them isn't abusing them. Similarly discriminating in hiring based on race may be wrong, it may be unjust, it probably will be found to be illegal if someone can prove you did it, but it isn't abuse. Tim