It's a delimma, but one we have to deal with all the time in service of a greater good.

My mother (who is no longer with us) would think that teens who wear their pants so far down on their butts that you can see their underwear is terrible. On the other hand, some make the case that the state has no legitimate concern in how folks wear their pants. So who's right? Those in favor of modesty who are offended by seeing some guy's underwear, or those who think Police State should stay out of the fashion business. I am not asking you to take a position. I am simply saying that these balancing acts between one person's rights and another person's rights happen all the time and they are tricky.

In the middile of the last century some Southerners asked if it was right for them to be forced to violate their sense the moral order by sharing public facilities with black people. These were people who lived their whole life one way and the state -- in service of a greater good -- decided it was wrong. As you might imagine, I agree with the state in this instance, but clearly one person's rights were demolished in favor of another's. I really do feel their pain.

So to finally answer the question. It would not be my first choice to ignore the feelings of people whose modesty causes them to want to avoid these machines. Perhaps they could be patted down instead. I don't know. But if the machines worked -- and I understand there is some question if they do -- and there was no other option than to use them, then this would be a situation where one person's rights (the modest) would have to ignored in favor of another's in service of a greater good.