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: TimF who wrote (80808)	6/26/2004 12:15:26 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"However if I don't want to hire you, you have no right to make me pay you anyway." Oh brother! There must be MILLIONS of people arguing that proposition! I don't know of any anti-discrimination laws which force people to pay people for work that wasn't done!...Get real, Tim! You said that "But there is no right of others to demand that you pay them". And is there any law which demands paying people for work not done?! There is a right of others which demands that you pay them if you owe them. Why would you feel obligated to pay someone who has not worked for you? "our current legal regime itself infringes on our natural rights with such things as anti-discrimination laws." If they were unconstitutional they would be illegal...or wrongfully enacted. If you think your Supreme thinkers are wrong, you ought to complain to them. I surely cannot help you. "Sorry for the mistake." I don't know why. It was the most intelligent thing you've said (here) in a month. "Vile is a better synonym for disgusting the corrupt" Yep. It is practically impossible to disgusting everything otherwise. "Remaining passive is not an abusive act" Sometimes it is. In the described case it is. Refusing medical care as a qualified doctor on the basis of the religion of the patient is ignorant, illegal, and abusive. You didn't know that?? "1 : a corrupt practice or custom 2 : improper or excessive use or treatment" "Should a bigot be required, by force of law, to give blood to someone he hates if the person he hates would die without it?" NO. "The law might not be challenged, or the challenge might be incompetent, or the court might apply some other principle then what the constitution actually says." The proof to overthrow the status quo is your requirement--not mine. There are a million million "mights". Your rights rest in the Constitution. All laws affecting your life must conform to the Constitutional rights. It is immoral and illegal to abridge your Constitutional rights. So argue your case with the High Court. "Laws are enacted arbitrarily all of the time" Well...that is a bit overblown...but it is true that laws are sometimes less than justified by sound reason.