Author Topic: Fair Employment Opportunity Act  (Read 11032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2012, 11:14:51 AM »
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best.  One might have better qualities on paper.  But you need to take personality into consideration.  None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever.  You should not discriminate against people because of skin color.  What is so wrong about that concept?  Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2012, 11:17:15 AM »
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best.  One might have better qualities on paper.  But you need to take personality into consideration.  None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever.  You should not discriminate against people because of skin color.  What is so wrong about that concept?  Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?

My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2012, 11:20:04 AM »
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best.  One might have better qualities on paper.  But you need to take personality into consideration.  None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever.  You should not discriminate against people because of skin color.  What is so wrong about that concept?  Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?

My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.

This argument doesn't even make sense.  Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person.  Seriously.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2012, 11:44:21 AM »
I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings.

The reason why Libertarianism isn't going anywhere, in a nutshell.

rumborak

We'll just have to increase our efforts.  :biggrin: We ain't goin' away.

Yeah, but you're never going to achieve mainstream acceptance or "critical mass" as they say when you embrace something like discrimination and chalk it up to "private property rights"

If it were going to gain any mainstream acceptance, I think it would have done so by now, when you consider that the concept of libertarianism has been around for more than 150 years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting back to the hiring thing:  As a hiring manager, my job (among other things) is to hire the person who best meets the qualifications for the job, but also who is going to be the best fit at my company in terms of personality, background, etc.  In my opinion, no one is "entitled" to a job.  As mentioned above, a job is something you have to compete with others for.  They don't call it "the job market" for nothing.  While I am not OK with disqualifying candidates based only on the color of their skin or their gender or religious or ethnic heritage, I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone in my position to exercise some "gut feeling" on who the right candidate is going to be.  I think the main criteria should certainly be objectively measurable (education, experience, etc) but there are also some "soft qualifications" (hygiene, personal appearance, personality, etc) that I think are well within the spectrum of "appropriate" criteria by which to evaluate a potential employee.


Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2012, 12:14:23 PM »
Yeah, compatibility is crucial.  I work for a small business, currently 5 employees (we've had as many as 9).  For many years employee number six made us all miserable half the time.  He just didn't click with the rest of us.  This was a more or less unskilled position, so personality really is one of the most important qualifications if we opt to fill his position again.

As people here have probably gathered, I'm an equal opportunity misanthrope.  As Sgt. Hartman said, "here you are all equally worthless!"  I'm not going to turn away somebody because they're black (or more likely around hear Mexican), but it's somewhat tough to draw the line with regards to characteristics.  I'm much more likely to hire somebody who listens to rock music in the shop than crappy hip-hop rap or the even more nauseating Tejano.  I'm not going to hire somebody who wears his pants around his ankles.  Gang tattoos are probably out, as well.  Given those factors, the likelihood is that I'd hire a white kid before a black or Mexican kid.  Yet it's not inconceivable that I'd hire a 35 year old black guy who's into Cannonball Adderly long before a 19 year old white guy into C&W. 

Point is, it's a pretty gray area, and race absolutely does factor into it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2012, 01:21:22 PM »
But Barto, what you just described doesn't really have to do with race.  You are looking at qualities that anyone could have.  You don't want someone who won't fit in at work.  But you aren't saying no Mexicans or Black people will fit in so I'll never hire them.  You would hire someone who isn't white if they fit the qualifications necessary to be employed at your place of business.  That being said, you obviously don't believe discriminating someone based on race/religion/gender is right.

And kirk also, everything you said is 100% OK to do for hiring.  That's not real discrimination in any way.

If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12791
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2012, 02:21:50 PM »
But Barto, what you just described doesn't really have to do with race. 

What you said should be 100% correct.  But in reality, if someone in position to make a hiring decision ever articulated what Barto said, the EEOC and/or a plaintiff's lawyer would be knocking on his door with a lawsuit claiming that those characteristics are merely a proxy for what is actually race discrimination.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2012, 02:28:57 PM »
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best.  One might have better qualities on paper.  But you need to take personality into consideration.  None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever.  You should not discriminate against people because of skin color.  What is so wrong about that concept?  Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?

My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.

This argument doesn't even make sense.  Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person.  Seriously.

Uh.... The place I work. More than half of our customers are 55+ year old, rich, retired, racist fucks. We had a Puerto Rican guy working for us a while ago. He was a great employee. He also happened to have more complaints in his first 3 weeks than the rest of his department did for the prior year. He ended up quitting because the customers would treat him like he was a piece of shit. It's never spoken about, but that's probably the reason why our company has only had 2 black employees in the 7 years I have been working there. Our customers are fucked in the head enough to take their business elsewhere because they don't want to deal with a person of color. Blacks don't get hired because our store managers are racist, they don't get hired because we will lose customers as a result.

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2012, 02:45:46 PM »
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best.  One might have better qualities on paper.  But you need to take personality into consideration.  None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever.  You should not discriminate against people because of skin color.  What is so wrong about that concept?  Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?

My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.

This argument doesn't even make sense.  Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person.  Seriously.

Uh.... The place I work. More than half of our customers are 55+ year old, rich, retired, racist fucks. We had a Puerto Rican guy working for us a while ago. He was a great employee. He also happened to have more complaints in his first 3 weeks than the rest of his department did for the prior year. He ended up quitting because the customers would treat him like he was a piece of shit. It's never spoken about, but that's probably the reason why our company has only had 2 black employees in the 7 years I have been working there. Our customers are fucked in the head enough to take their business elsewhere because they don't want to deal with a person of color. Blacks don't get hired because our store managers are racist, they don't get hired because we will lose customers as a result.

So then your manager is then perpetuating racism despite not being racist.  Which in turn makes him discriminatory. 

I don't think this example really holds up, nor should it.  You are basically saying that your business needs bigots to survive.  I find this dubious. 
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline reneranucci

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 2235
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #44 on: March 13, 2012, 03:53:56 PM »
I kinda agree with 7Stringed here. I'm  not denying anybody's right to hire whoever they want, just trying to reflect on the fact that   system of incentives and behaviors that perpetuates racism like the one discussed here should be seriously evaluated and put into question.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2012, 06:15:07 PM »
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best.  One might have better qualities on paper.  But you need to take personality into consideration.  None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever.  You should not discriminate against people because of skin color.  What is so wrong about that concept?  Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?

My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.

This argument doesn't even make sense.  Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person.  Seriously.

Uh.... The place I work. More than half of our customers are 55+ year old, rich, retired, racist fucks. We had a Puerto Rican guy working for us a while ago. He was a great employee. He also happened to have more complaints in his first 3 weeks than the rest of his department did for the prior year. He ended up quitting because the customers would treat him like he was a piece of shit. It's never spoken about, but that's probably the reason why our company has only had 2 black employees in the 7 years I have been working there. Our customers are fucked in the head enough to take their business elsewhere because they don't want to deal with a person of color. Blacks don't get hired because our store managers are racist, they don't get hired because we will lose customers as a result.

So then your manager is then perpetuating racism despite not being racist.  Which in turn makes him discriminatory. 

I don't think this example really holds up, nor should it.  You are basically saying that your business needs bigots to survive.  I find this dubious.

He not discriminating. Discriminating would be saying "I'm not hiring a black man because of the fact he's black", he more or less thinks "Its unfortunate that hiring a black man would hurt my sales because my customers are racists"

And yes, the business I work for does need bigots to survive. Unfortunately, those bigots have the most cash, and they make up the majority of our customer base (like I said earlier, at least 50%). The people that have a problem with blacks, are also the same people who drop literally thousands of dollars a month into the company. There is one old couple (who I have heard say the word "nigger" on several occassions) that drop at least 300 dollars a week on just getting shit catered. If there was a black guy as head chef, I guarantee we would lose them as customers.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #46 on: March 13, 2012, 06:16:43 PM »
"I'm not hiring this black man because I can't have a black worker because whatever reason blah blah"

in short

"I am not hiring this black worker because he is black"


If he were white, those reasons for not hiring wouldn't exist. It's based 100% on his skin color. Thus he is discriminating, without being racist.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2012, 07:12:37 PM »
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.

Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2012, 07:14:57 PM »
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.

Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?


Because they discriminate based on looks. It's discrimination, the word doesn't always mean that whoever does it  is a racist nazi bastard, but the word means what the word means. Every job discriminates, they pick the best candidate and not the worst one, that's also discrimination. It's fine in a lot of situations. In this case it's based on his skin color.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2012, 08:06:56 PM »
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.

Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?


Because they discriminate based on looks. It's discrimination, the word doesn't always mean that whoever does it  is a racist nazi bastard, but the word means what the word means. Every job discriminates, they pick the best candidate and not the worst one, that's also discrimination. It's fine in a lot of situations. In this case it's based on his skin color.

Hooters doesn't hire fat chicks because thats not what their customers want to see. They go to have some hot chick that the would fantasize about serve them. Hooters limits who they hire because doing otherwise would have a negative affect on their revenue. I'm sure the owner of a Hooters establishment doesn't hate fat chicks, he/she just can't afford to have them work there. The same goes for the place I work.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2012, 08:09:05 PM »
See, you're justifying what you think I'm disapproving of. I'm not making a judgement call. WHATEVER his reasoning is, it's still discrimination, that's just what the word means. He can be a saint but he's still discriminating, whatever his reason for it is. Once again, discrimination is not a negative word by itself, so there's no real need to defend what he does against the usage of the word discrimination. That's just what it is.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2012, 08:36:24 PM »
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.

Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
You're assigning a negative connotation to discrimination where one needn't exist.  When you go to the store to buy peanut butter, and you decide to buy crunchy instead of creamy, you're discriminating.  It only means to assign distinction.  Discrimination can be bad or good, but the word itself is neutral.  Your boss and Hooters both discriminate against classes of people, but it could just as easily be seen as a necessary consequence rather than the actions of assholes. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2012, 08:05:12 AM »
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.

Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
You're assigning a negative connotation to discrimination where one needn't exist.  When you go to the store to buy peanut butter, and you decide to buy crunchy instead of creamy, you're discriminating.  It only means to assign distinction.  Discrimination can be bad or good, but the word itself is neutral.  Your boss and Hooters both discriminate against classes of people, but it could just as easily be seen as a necessary consequence rather than the actions of assholes.

That

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2012, 08:38:27 AM »
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.

Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
You're assigning a negative connotation to discrimination where one needn't exist.  When you go to the store to buy peanut butter, and you decide to buy crunchy instead of creamy, you're discriminating.  It only means to assign distinction.  Discrimination can be bad or good, but the word itself is neutral.  Your boss and Hooters both discriminate against classes of people, but it could just as easily be seen as a necessary consequence rather than the actions of assholes.

Then why is discrimination labeled as a bad thing? I agree with this logic, but it means that we discriminate every time we have to choose between two or more things. To me, not hiring someone simply because you don't like blacks is an example of discrimination. Not hiring a black because it will affect your company, due to circumstances beyond your control, is just having to make a financial decision.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2012, 08:42:16 AM »
It's generally seen as a bad thing within the context of employment.  Like I said, the word itself is neutral, but the application of it can be good or bad, and most people view racial discrimination as bad.  You can make legitimate arguments, like your boss or Hooters, and many will see that as perfectly fine, but it's discrimination nonetheless, and up to the individual to assign value to it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2012, 08:43:59 AM »
Long story short, it's a matter of semantics and what's at stake.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2012, 08:44:07 AM »
wouldnt racial discrimination just be racism?

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2012, 09:04:25 AM »
wouldnt racial discrimination just be racism?
No, racial discrimination is what your boss does.  Racism would be "I hate black people!"  From that, he might then move into the racial discrimination category should he base his hiring/firing decisions on that hatred. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12791
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2012, 10:51:57 AM »
Law perspective:  Pretty much what Barto said.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #59 on: March 14, 2012, 01:21:06 PM »
Most people just automatically associate the word "discrimination" with racism or intolerance. 

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #60 on: March 15, 2012, 06:30:24 AM »
ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.
It's not institutionalized racism. Have you ever heard of freedom of associate?

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #61 on: March 15, 2012, 08:32:48 AM »
ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.
It's not institutionalized racism. Have you ever heard of freedom of associate?

That is the freedom to come together and congregate, not the freedom to exclude based on one's skin color, gender, or religion.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #62 on: March 15, 2012, 08:37:19 AM »
It's your right to exclude anyone you want

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #63 on: March 15, 2012, 08:42:46 AM »
From the Wiki on Freedom of Association

Quote
Limitation

However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.[3]
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline Orion1967

  • Posts: 406
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #64 on: March 15, 2012, 02:16:52 PM »
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.

Wait...   so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition?    I'm confused.
Cool Story Bro. 

Tell it again

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #65 on: March 15, 2012, 02:29:47 PM »
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.

Wait...   so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition?    I'm confused.
No.  The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed.  A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants.  If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business.  Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline snapple

  • Dad-bod Expert
  • Posts: 5144
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #66 on: March 15, 2012, 03:55:52 PM »
Does this mean my local Hooters could be filled with flat chested 2/10's instead of big breasted 7-9/10's? Where's Fox news?! There's going to be an outrage!!!!

No, but really. People are going to hire who they want. It's just a fact.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #67 on: March 17, 2012, 01:33:19 PM »
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.

Wait...   so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition?    I'm confused.
No.  The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed.  A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants.  If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business.  Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.

The large scale social consequences which completely allowing discrimination leads to is abhorrent. There's using race as one of many factors in determining if a candidate is right, and then there's using race as the only factor. When you start saying it's okay for private businesses to practice discrimination, a la their right to do so on an individual basis, you can easily end up with a Jim Crow style south. I mean, is it acceptable for such discriminatory practices to basically create a secondary class of citizens?

I'd also say there's a difference between not hiring a gay, black or Muslim woman and not hiring any gay, black or Muslim.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #68 on: March 17, 2012, 01:41:52 PM »
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.

Wait...   so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition?    I'm confused.
No.  The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed.  A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants.  If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business.  Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.

The large scale social consequences which completely allowing discrimination leads to is abhorrent. There's using race as one of many factors in determining if a candidate is right, and then there's using race as the only factor. When you start saying it's okay for private businesses to practice discrimination, a la their right to do so on an individual basis, you can easily end up with a Jim Crow style south. I mean, is it acceptable for such discriminatory practices to basically create a secondary class of citizens?

I don't think so.  For one thing, there are so many minorities in the South that nobody would want to write off their business.  While some people might not want it, plenty of others will.  Also, I think we're only talking about small businesses.  Major stores won't want the heat they'd get elsewhere.  And at present, there's really nothing stopping small businesses from discriminating anyway. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Fair Employment Opportunity Act
« Reply #69 on: March 17, 2012, 01:51:13 PM »
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.

Wait...   so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition?    I'm confused.
No.  The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed.  A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants.  If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business.  Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.

The large scale social consequences which completely allowing discrimination leads to is abhorrent. There's using race as one of many factors in determining if a candidate is right, and then there's using race as the only factor. When you start saying it's okay for private businesses to practice discrimination, a la their right to do so on an individual basis, you can easily end up with a Jim Crow style south. I mean, is it acceptable for such discriminatory practices to basically create a secondary class of citizens?

I don't think so.  For one thing, there are so many minorities in the South that nobody would want to write off their business.  While some people might not want it, plenty of others will.  Also, I think we're only talking about small businesses.  Major stores won't want the heat they'd get elsewhere.  And at present, there's really nothing stopping small businesses from discriminating anyway.

If this is true, then why are there such powerful historical counter examples? There were tons of business owners in the south who didn't mind losing the business of black people - especially when you consider the fact that minorities are often less wealthy, and in a lot of cases, you're not losing much business.

And the fact that it happens, and will continue to happen, is no reason to just roll over and accept it. If that were true, we should abandon every law, and accept complete anarchy.