Active Users:1145 Time:23/11/2024 12:30:42 AM
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.") Joel Send a noteboard - 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
That covers a lot of ground, and I tried to avoid going there after getting into it a while back over equal opportunity housing and related laws. The bottom line is that we cannot, or should not, ban bigotry itself. Free democratic societies tend to gradually reduce bigotry by ostracizing bigots (which is not "bigotry against bigots" because it rejects behavior, not people.) What we cannot do is let the majority dictate what everyone believes or how they choose to dispose of their own property. Unfortunately, that means businesses ought to be able to post "Irish need not apply" signs if willing to deal with the loss of trade such practices provoke.


I'll bite. How should the Civil Rights Act have been written in order to reverse stagnant attitudes about racial employment when it came to African-Americans such that the law read in a way that could still be universalized -- without referring to a grouping phrase like "on the basis of race"? If you referred instead to "all individuals" or "no individuals," it seems to me you'd be invariably crossing the line where employers can't hire or fire anyone at all for reasons other than direct qualifications. That might work for a very generic business, but any business going for a certain image or flavor would have a tough time of it. Law firms would have to hire people who refuse to wear suits, for instance, just because those people may be well qualified at law.

(Of course, maybe I am just an old fuddy-duddy in my own way.)

Everyone is an old fuddy-duddy in their own way; that is the REAL crux of all discrimination. So, yes, the employment standard should be ability to best do the job: What other standard is non-discriminatory? How many people resent what we did instead, not because they are bigots, but because they do not want to lose their livelihood to someone with no qualifications but the "right" color, gender, etc? Professional attire for professional duties falls within job qualifications, but basing employment on anything that does not is discrimination on its face.

Also, and once again, I am not sure any of that should have the force of law for private businesses, whose owners should be free to be as bigoted as they like as long as they commit/incite no violence. That will have inevitably dire commercial consequences, but should not have legal ones.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 24/10/2012 at 04:39:11 PM
Reply to message
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy? - 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM 1368 Views
Legal rights. - 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM 776 Views
It almost sounds like you are saying... - 20/10/2012 12:31:40 AM 745 Views
That is what I'm saying it. - 20/10/2012 01:07:50 AM 727 Views
Technically, privileges, not rights. - 20/10/2012 04:16:45 AM 731 Views
Sure - 20/10/2012 12:35:53 AM 657 Views
All for it... For adults over the age of 18. *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:18:04 AM 390 Views
What about it? - 20/10/2012 01:21:17 AM 734 Views
+1 *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:51:25 AM 423 Views
+2 *NM* - 20/10/2012 11:18:39 AM 375 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM 376 Views
poly people? - 20/10/2012 12:44:01 PM 701 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM 367 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does. - 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM 704 Views
That's not what I'm saying - 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM 721 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard! - 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM 669 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence.. - 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM 746 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid. - 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM 665 Views
The more fool you. - 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM 758 Views
Ha! Point. *NM* - 20/10/2012 05:40:34 AM 566 Views
Marriage is always a choice, whatever the motive(s.) - 22/10/2012 04:00:40 PM 690 Views
I got no opinion on it. - 20/10/2012 12:51:43 PM 788 Views
The idea of a group marriage makes me uncomfortable - 20/10/2012 04:19:48 PM 669 Views
As long as it is equitable - 20/10/2012 05:55:57 PM 661 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway - 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM 732 Views
Indeed - 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM 790 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business. - 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM 1066 Views
And so? - 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM 698 Views
Re: And so? - 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM 864 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none. - 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM 744 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed. - 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM 671 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government. - 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM 603 Views
Much less force, yes. - 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM 612 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM 684 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." - 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM 628 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.") - 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM 651 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences. - 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM 706 Views
Depends on where you look, and for how long. - 26/10/2012 01:19:00 AM 666 Views
+1 *NM* - 23/10/2012 07:36:46 PM 309 Views
No the analogy is not exact, nor legally the same... - 23/10/2012 07:33:25 PM 579 Views
Analogy is not equality, only similarity. - 24/10/2012 04:37:29 PM 778 Views
We aren't asking for something better or different. - 23/10/2012 04:27:04 PM 673 Views
yeah, it is very circular. - 23/10/2012 07:44:33 PM 703 Views

Reply to Message