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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (851663)	4/23/2015 12:35:39 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578001

>> Instead it became widely accepted as something that was perfectly ok, special case or not. This is the drawback with so much law today. The idea that law should not be on the books longer than necessary never occurs to anyone, but I truly believe we would be better off if laws had sunset provisions where we could actually consider whether they were still necessary. Just because a law was necessary in 1965 doesn't mean we need it permanently, where it can become the basis of other law with totally different intents. And we're seeing that play out now where other classes feel they need to be "protected" because they exist, not because they are really being injured in any way. I really offended a gay friend by asking him why he thought he needed to be protected by the government. But it is a legitimate question. Is anyone requiring him to sit at the back of the bus? I'm pretty sure they're not.

To: TimF who wrote (851663)	4/23/2015 12:51:15 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1578001

Tim, I could see an argument for going beyond that. Arguing that racism and segregation were so pervasive, and strong that outlawing them was needed for public accommodations. But even if that's accepted, and I see it as a bit of a stretch, it would be a case of accepting an injustice, in the name of an important practical good in a special case. When the bullied becomes the bulliers, you know the laws have gone too far. When the gay couple asked the bakery in Oregon to cater their wedding, and the bakery refused, the couple didn't want to accept that. Instead, they had to make an example out of that business, and they succeeded. Did they also succeed in silencing religion? WTF cares, as long as they can free society of any discriminatory thought. Tenchusatsu