Shodan : What if Winthrop is a registered pharmacist? “Consorting with known felons” does not equate to “consorting with people suspected of crime”, though I believe a P.O. can identify individuals he believes to be a bad influence and require his clients not to associate with them. I’m not sure if you realized you were switching categories, from ‘convicted felons’ to ‘drug dealers’, in the middle of your analogy.
Polycarp:
Now, let us approach this from a different perspective: perhaps there is something that is universally agreed to be an optional act by the government, e.g., funding a public library. Is it legal to discriminate (based on suspect classifications) as to who may be permitted to use that library?
Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that there is no blanket affirmative duty to provide public housing, but that many communities, with or without HUD support, do so provide. Is the parallel valid: there is no requirement to provide public housing, just as there is no requirement to provide public library service – but if it is provided, it must be provided according to equal protection standards?
As long as they weren’t discriminating against a protected class why wouldn’t a library be able to to say who can and can’t use it?
Shodan
July 5, 2009, 9:26pm
23
Polycarp:
Shodan : What if Winthrop is a registered pharmacist? “Consorting with known felons” does not equate to “consorting with people suspected of crime”, though I believe a P.O. can identify individuals he believes to be a bad influence and require his clients not to associate with them. I’m not sure if you realized you were switching categories, from ‘convicted felons’ to ‘drug dealers’, in the middle of your analogy.
Is there some rule on this thread, where nobody reads anything the first time it is posted?
Sheesh.
Regards,