Text 3255, 55 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 12:47:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3728.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C0CF45A10027D8BFF0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <tvk3a25e9g569kboqqafddt66al5vajr6k@4ax.com>
>>On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:37:52 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote
(in article <kurtullman-AE8EFB.19375003072006@news.west.earthlink.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C0CEF2580014CDBEF0407530@news.verizon.net>,
>  Amy Guskin <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
> 
>  In 1968, if 
>> you, as a male, walked into your corporate job with your hair down to the 
>> middle of your back and in a ponytail, you'd have been fired or at the very 
>> least snickered at behind peoples' hands.  Because at that time in society, 
>> long hair was thought to be abhorrent.  Now we know better; that having 
>> long 
>> hair doesn't make someone a deviant, or a bad person.
> 
>      But you can still be fired for that in most states. <<

Not so sure about that.  There's the case of a bunch of kids suing Six Flags, 
who fired them because of cornrows and dreadlocks (or so they said; they 
probably actually fired them because they are black).  And, incidentally, 
some of these kids were working as...mascots.  With big animal heads entirely 
enclosing their heads and offending hairdos!  I guess we'll have to see if 
this case holds up in court.  Presumably an employer would have to prove that 
short hair was an actual requirement for the job.

>>>>> Why anyone would want to place restrictions on the amount of consensual 
>>>> love 
>>>> being expressed in this world, I can't understand.
>>>> 
>>> Since the demise of the sodomy statutes, there is nothing that 
>>> places restrictions on amount of consensual love. Marriage, especially 
>>> in a civil context, has nothing to do the expression of love. Just the 
>>> legalities, and most of those have nothing to do with love, but more 
>>> along the lines of who gets what in legal proceedings, etc. <<
>> 
>> No, it does not _literally_ place restrictions on love, but it effectively 
>> does so socially.  And it says that the society does so, by saying that 
>> persons  X and Y aren't permitted to be married, while persons Q and Z are.
>> 
>         Which a society has an absolute right to do (define what things 
> are from a social standpoint). <<

Again, it doesn't make it right.

Amy
                                                              
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)