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 (80815)	6/29/2004 9:34:25 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I was not talking about paying someone for work that was not done" "But there is no right of others to demand that you pay them" is what you said. That is VERY different than being forced to hire somebody. "Why not? Its descrimination based on racial or ethnic reasons on a matter of life or death that has a very negative impact on the person descriminated again and you seem to have little problem with forcing people to treat others fairly in other instances" Let us make something clear so we do not chatter aimlessly at cross purposes: Freedoms and Rights are not Absolute. Rights bump against one another all the time. Freedom of Association is a Fundamental Right. You do not need to convince me of that; I hold it as a high value. But I recognize (as have the Courts) that discrimination causes untold damage to society and to the citizens in the care of the State. Where the State has a compelling interest in justice or in the prevention of harm, it may act to abridge both free speech and free association. You may remember a recent case where the Supremes overturned a lower ruling that had been in favour of a homosexual claimant who was terminated from the Boy Scouts. So the Law takes the Constitution very seriously, and they do not trivialize Freedom of Association even when it involves hot social issues such as discrimination against homosexuals. The State has an obligation to protect her members from systemic discrimination. Where the State can argue such a compelling interest as necessary to limit certain "rights" to prevent overweening harm to society...then it may do so with reference to case history and prinicples of law. The law is not static, but evolves to meet the real demands of people attempting to live together in safety and with some measure of equality. It is not the need of another per se which abridges your freedoms, it is the compelling interest of the State. So at this point in time the sharing of bodily fluids is best left on a volunteer basis.