Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Heck's Kitchen" wrote:
> > "Dave Thompson" wrote:
> > > And I believe everybody should have equal protection
> > > and a right to privacy no matter what state they live in.
> > A right to privacy for sex, or a right to privacy that
> > extends to gun ownership, banking, travel within one's
> > own nation?
> Right to privacy in context with the off-topic discussion
> of this thread, which would be sex. The rest are completely
> different topics.
In other words, your dedication to the right to privacy
is as limited as the justice who coined the phrase.
Bob Tiernan
NOW is able to overlook wife-beating
and murder in the case of someone who's
a role model for young black men and the
sexual exploitation of subordinates in
the case of someone who can help the
organization politically and financially.
-- Tammy Bruce
Past President
Now (Los Angeles Chapter)
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> >Nothing but cushy days off from here on in, hank.
> Congrats on your retirement. I guess my first assumption was correct:
> "I'm thinking that Bill is either enjoying another cushy day-off, ...
> at the expense of City taxpayers again!"
Hate speech? Or just envy?
Peace and justice,
CLW wrote:
> Cummon, BT, you know that the phrase "Right to privacy" is based on the
> Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Like many other personal
> freedoms (marriage, procreation, right to earn a living etc), privacy
> does not stand alone as a constitutional concept. But, its basis is an
> absolute constitutional requirement, liberty as protected by due
> process.
In other words, it's not much of a right to you. Like I said,
people like Shatzer (just to name one) have no problem at all
with a right being denied so long as the person has his day in
court (as a formality I guess).
Bob t