On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, for one thing, I wasn't agreeing with the majority, though I haven't > finished the thread yet. :-) > > But for me, it changed, when Kevin said he was personally involved even at a > distance. That's a different kettle of fish.
As a parent Kevin has a responsibility to his children, but as a human being, he has a responsibility to the rest of humankind. Yes, that even means that he must consider the rights of anyone who may be accused of doing bad things to his children. > And I am not aware that he is > under any "gag order" not to mention it. Of course he isn't. > As a parent and a victim and a customer, > Kevin is entitled to his reactions. No one is trying to stop Kevin from experiencing his reactions, but that does not give him carte blanche to trample on the rights of everyone he feels ~may~ have wronged his loved ones. > And has the freedom of speech to voice > them. With freedom of speech comes ~responsibilty~. One is free to stand up in a theater and yell "fire!", but that person must accept the consequences of so doing. > And the vendor has the right to know they may have hired someone, > unknowingly, that might turn customers off. If a complaint is made WRT an employee, such a complaint may haunt that person for the rest of their life, whether they lose their job or not. Accusations of a sexual nature must never be made lightly, for as this list has proven today, an accusation or mere suggestion of involvement is enough to convince some of automatic guilt. >. Although the store owner may know already > and he/she also has the right to hire whom he/she wants. Sorry, Marnie, but once someone is hired, the law protects them from wrongful dismissal. A store owner most certainly doens ~not~ have the right to let someone go without a good reason. Customers also have > the right not to patronize his/her store. As they do for any number of reasons. > > I think it's because, Jack, people do get accused that later turn out to be > innocent. And that is something to be concerned about. But I don't think, > personally, it negates the above. It sure as heck does! <g> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
