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.
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
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
- 1370 Views
Legal rights.
20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
- 777 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
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
- 368 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
- 707 Views
That's not what I'm saying
21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
- 723 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
- 671 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
- 749 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
- 666 Views
The more fool you.
21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
- 761 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
- 694 Views
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
- 650 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
- 757 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
- 718 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
- 823 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
- 715 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
- 768 Views
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
- 657 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
- 691 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
- 366 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
- 764 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
- 866 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
- 394 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
- 685 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
- 734 Views
Indeed
21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
- 792 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
- 1067 Views
And so?
21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
- 700 Views
Re: And so?
21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
- 867 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
- 372 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
- 631 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
- 691 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
- 659 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
- 609 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
- 667 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
- 602 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
- 648 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
- 747 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
- 673 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
- 606 Views
Much less force, yes.
23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
- 614 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
- 687 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
- 630 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
- 652 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
- 708 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
- 339 Views