Banning discrimination against LGBT

[Ifreann]

With the exception of Churches, all businesses would banned from bias based on sexuality, nationwide.

What aspects of this hypothetical law would you be opposed to, if any?

I'm not certain if an exemption for Day Care Centers might be in order.
On one hand, you can argue for "tolerance".
On the other hand, you can argue against sexualization and confusion of young minds.

Because having gays or transsexuals near children will sexualise them! Beware! Beware!

[Rolling squid]

With the exception of Churches, all businesses would banned from bias based on sexuality, nationwide.

What aspects of this hypothetical law would you be opposed to, if any?

I'm not certain if an exemption for Day Care Centers might be in order.
On one hand, you can argue for "tolerance".
On the other hand, you can argue against sexualization and confusion of young minds.

Yes, because teh gays will brainwash our children! Please. I thought all that crap about the homosexual agenda died out in the 00's.

[Siromizu]

If you didn't intend me to answer, why did you ask a question in response to a statement of mine? How is that hypothetical? Or do you mean rhetorical? And I don't think the answer is yes, obviously.

Do pardon me; I'm functioning on less sleep than I should be. I did indeed mean to say that it was a rhetorical question.

If no employer is allowed to discriminate on these grounds, then there will be nothing to gain from marketing to bigots. They will have to deal with living in an equal society.

I didn't imply marketing to bigots; I was rather detailing a situation in which discriminatory policies are the way in which to maintain profit.

Semper non sequitur, chief. I never said anything about what employers should be allowed think.

So, what of an employer who thinks that homosexuals and negroes will not make good employees?

As I said, legislating against unfair discrimination in employment benefits society.

No, it benefits minorities, does not affect the larger part of society, and may upset those who hold their freedom dear.

Yawn.

What tires you?

Legalising discrimination in all facets of life would do away with that unpleasantry entirely,

If calling "discrimination" is no longer a way to garner sympathy and make court cases, taking away the capacity for court cases based on it is sure to quash such behaviour.

Horseshit. What good reason was there for discriminating against blacks for hundreds of years?

Now, not everyone supported that. If they did, it wouldn't have stopped.

Because there are 5 jobs for every unemployed person. Yup.

It's neither a fault nor concern of mine that your country is a shithole without enough openings in the workforce; to punish business owners for that is hardly fair.

Freedom to oppress and disenfranchise is something I'd rather there was less of.

Oppression and disenfranchisement it would not be. What do people lose from not being given a job? The job belongs to the employer, and as private property it should be down to its owner to determine who may use it.

[Berenjena]

If you didn't intend me to answer, why did you ask a question in response to a statement of mine? How is that hypothetical? Or do you mean rhetorical? And I don't think the answer is yes, obviously.

Do pardon me; I'm functioning on less sleep than I should be. I did indeed mean to say that it was a rhetorical question.

Is that also an excuse for the rest of your ridiculous statements?

If no employer is allowed to discriminate on these grounds, then there will be nothing to gain from marketing to bigots. They will have to deal with living in an equal society.

I didn't imply marketing to bigots; I was rather detailing a situation in which discriminatory policies are the way in which to maintain profit.

And how does that maintain profit? Why would hiring a black person or hiring a gay person hurt profit? Are you implying that they won't work hard? Because, my friend, that's racism.

Semper non sequitur, chief. I never said anything about what employers should be allowed think.

So, what of an employer who thinks that homosexuals and negroes will not make good employees?

Unless he has a legitimate reason other than race or sexual orientation not to hire someone, he shouldn't be an employer. People should be judged on character, not color. If he thinks they wouldn't make a good employee because they're black, and doesn't hire them solely for that reason, that's shit.

As I said, legislating against unfair discrimination in employment benefits society.

No, it benefits minorities, does not affect the larger part of society, and may upset those who hold their freedom dear.

Excuse me...how would someone be upset by this? And if a black, gay, jewish doctor who has the ability to cure cancer is refused a job because of his race/religion/sexual preference, then yes, that would affect society.

Because there are 5 jobs for every unemployed person. Yup.

It's neither a fault nor concern of mine that your country is a shithole without enough openings in the workforce; to punish business owners for that is hardly fair.

Ah, but it IS a concern of OURS...given we live here.

Freedom to oppress and disenfranchise is something I'd rather there was less of.

Oppression and disenfranchisement it would not be. What do people lose from not being given a job? The job belongs to the employer, and as private property it should be down to its owner to determine who may use it.

To an extent.

Here's an example: say two college graduates are applying for a job in an engineering firm. One is a black man with a masters in mechanical engineering. He is well-kempt, orderly, and respectful. He has held many leadership positions at his ivy-league school, including class president. He also has numerous references praising his work.

The white man is a college dropout from a state college. He was team captain of his intramural ultimate frisbee team and served as class president in high school, but that's about the extent of his resume. He has an old suit that he wears to the interview, but doesn't bother washing or ironing it.

The employer hires the white man for ONE REASON: he doesn't like black people. Frankly, he threw his application out on the spot after seeing that he was black.

Now, tell me. Honestly. Is that fair? Is that just?

[Soheran]

I'm not certain if an exemption for Day Care Centers might be in order.
On one hand, you can argue for "tolerance".
On the other hand, you can argue against sexualization and confusion of young minds.

I agree. Everyone at day care centers should be legally-obligated to be asexual.

[Unchecked Expansion]

I'm not certain if an exemption for Day Care Centers might be in order.
On one hand, you can argue for "tolerance".
On the other hand, you can argue against sexualization and confusion of young minds.

I agree. Everyone at day care centers should be legally-obligated to be asexual.

Everyone working with children must be surgically castrated and have their sex drives chemically numbed.
It's the only way to be sure

[Desperate Measures]

With the exception of Churches, all businesses would banned from bias based on sexuality, nationwide.

What aspects of this hypothetical law would you be opposed to, if any?

I'm not certain if an exemption for Day Care Centers might be in order.
On one hand, you can argue for "tolerance".
On the other hand, you can argue against sexualization and confusion of young minds.

Better keep those kids out of church.

[Siromizu]

And how does that maintain profit? Why would hiring a black person or hiring a gay person hurt profit? Are you implying that they won't work hard? Because, my friend, that's racism.

Read the earlier parts of the discussion for context.

Unless he has a legitimate reason other than race or sexual orientation not to hire someone, he shouldn't be an employer. People should be judged on character, not color. If he thinks they wouldn't make a good employee because they're black, and doesn't hire them solely for that reason, that's shit.

Oh, I see. Since when does belief in something that cannot be proven nullify your right to private property? Sure, it might be shit, but if a gay black man doesn't hire me because I am straight and white, I'm not going to complain because it's his business.

Excuse me...how would someone be upset by this? And if a black, gay, jewish doctor who has the ability to cure cancer is refused a job because of his race/religion/sexual preference, then yes, that would affect society.

That's not for me to answer. All I can say is that there definitely are some employers who would not be pleased at being forced to hire members of certain minorities. I don't know why, but I know it to be true, since if it weren't people wouldn't want laws against employment discrimination. And what do you mean by "the ability to cure cancer"? Someone who already has found a cure? Then why do they need a job? And more importantly, if they do, who wouldn't give it to them for a chance at the profits? Or did you mean someone who might find a cure in the future? That's a pretty big "might". It's not really a decent example.

Ah, but it IS a concern of OURS...given we live here.

And I don't. I'm speaking about what would be best for my country; clearly you can't have one set of laws that is perfect for every society, so I'm not even going to try. I don't need to take into account the unemployment rate in foreign nations when speaking about policy where I live.

To an extent.

Here's an example: say two college graduates are applying for a job in an engineering firm. One is a black man with a masters in mechanical engineering. He is well-kempt, orderly, and respectful. He has held many leadership positions at his ivy-league school, including class president. He also has numerous references praising his work.

The white man is a college dropout from a state college. He was team captain of his intramural ultimate frisbee team and served as class president in high school, but that's about the extent of his resume. He has an old suit that he wears to the interview, but doesn't bother washing or ironing it.

The employer hires the white man for ONE REASON: he doesn't like black people. Frankly, he threw his application out on the spot after seeing that he was black.

Now, tell me. Honestly. Is that fair? Is that just?

Honestly, it's fair to the employer, and since he's the one who "owns" the job, that's what I care about. Sure, it may not be a wise or fair choice (for the candidates, at least) that has been made in your example, but it's still the choice of the employer, and nobody else. The thing is, stupid hiring policies will sink a business eventually, if they are stupid enough. Given that it would be a very, very rare thing for companies to follow such hiring policies, I think it's better to conserve property rights rather than "freedom of employment" (what's that, freedom to something you don't own?). It'd be like, I have a bike for rental. A white man who doesn't know how to ride a bike asks to rent it, and I let him. A black man who is a very good cyclist asks to rent it, and I don't let him use it. The white man crashes my bike, and seriously damages it. The black man just goes to find another bike to borrow, from someone who will let him rent it. With this in mind, I'm the only one with anything to lose from making stupid decisions about who to rent my bike to. There's no need for the government to regulate it, just as there's no reason for the government to regulate employment policies.

[Thurask]

The problem with laws like these is that they might escalate to banning discrimination based on ability (like suing your employer because you aren't qualified).

[Apertior]

Sure is slippery slope in here.

(Not, of course, referring to the obvious satirists.)

[Kwewu]

With the exception of Churches, all businesses would banned from bias based on sexuality, nationwide.

What aspects of this hypothetical law would you be opposed to, if any?

Business should be able to hire whoever that business deems worthy. If the big cheese doesn't want to hire someone who is not straight, than so be it. Its the same principle as "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

[UNIverseVERSE]

The problem with laws like these is that they might escalate to banning discrimination based on ability (like suing your employer because you aren't qualified).

No they won't. There is a clear and major difference between hiring on the basis of sexual orientation and hiring on the basis of ability -- the latter is directly linked to how well you can perform at the job.

What we seek to bring an end to is baseless discrimination, discrimination without a compelling reason. "X is less able to do the job than Y" is a compelling reason. Unless X's sexual orientation is directly relevant, "X is gay" is not.

Business should be able to hire whoever that business deems worthy. If the big cheese doesn't want to hire someone who is not straight, than so be it. Its the same principle as "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Which is bullshit in and of itself. If you don't want to have to treat straight people, black people, muslim people, and women as equal with WASPs, you are free to not open a business. If you choose to enter the public sphere, the public can put conditions on what you do.

[Berenjena]

Unless he has a legitimate reason other than race or sexual orientation not to hire someone, he shouldn't be an employer. People should be judged on character, not color. If he thinks they wouldn't make a good employee because they're black, and doesn't hire them solely for that reason, that's shit.

Oh, I see. Since when does belief in something that cannot be proven nullify your right to private property? Sure, it might be shit, but if a gay black man doesn't hire me because I am straight and white, I'm not going to complain because it's his business.

Really? I would. If I wasn't hired for a job that I really wanted because I was white, I'd totally fight back. Now you're just being lazy.

Excuse me...how would someone be upset by this? And if a black, gay, jewish doctor who has the ability to cure cancer is refused a job because of his race/religion/sexual preference, then yes, that would affect society.

That's not for me to answer. All I can say is that there definitely are some employers who would not be pleased at being forced to hire members of certain minorities. I don't know why, but I know it to be true, since if it weren't people wouldn't want laws against employment discrimination. And what do you mean by "the ability to cure cancer"? Someone who already has found a cure? Then why do they need a job? And more importantly, if they do, who wouldn't give it to them for a chance at the profits? Or did you mean someone who might find a cure in the future? That's a pretty big "might". It's not really a decent example.

Excuse my poor wording. What I meant was that think of two alternate realities (far-fetched, I know). In one, the black man is hired by a presigious medical research facility and eventually goes on (because he has the intelligence) to cure cancer, AIDS, and the common cold. In the other, every medical research facility turns him down because he is black, and he ends up working in fast food because that's the only place that'll hire him. Yes, it is a stretch, but still a sucky scenario.

Furthermore, this isn't forcing a company to hire minorities. This is simply forcing a company to judge based on character and qualification rather than race. If it doesn't change the hiring process for some companies, so be it, but at least we know that the person who got the job was chosen based on merit rather than skin color.

To an extent.

Here's an example: say two college graduates are applying for a job in an engineering firm. One is a black man with a masters in mechanical engineering. He is well-kempt, orderly, and respectful. He has held many leadership positions at his ivy-league school, including class president. He also has numerous references praising his work.

The white man is a college dropout from a state college. He was team captain of his intramural ultimate frisbee team and served as class president in high school, but that's about the extent of his resume. He has an old suit that he wears to the interview, but doesn't bother washing or ironing it.

The employer hires the white man for ONE REASON: he doesn't like black people. Frankly, he threw his application out on the spot after seeing that he was black.

Now, tell me. Honestly. Is that fair? Is that just?

Honestly, it's fair to the employer, and since he's the one who "owns" the job, that's what I care about. Sure, it may not be a wise or fair choice (for the candidates, at least) that has been made in your example, but it's still the choice of the employer, and nobody else. The thing is, stupid hiring policies will sink a business eventually, if they are stupid enough. Given that it would be a very, very rare thing for companies to follow such hiring policies, I think it's better to conserve property rights rather than "freedom of employment" (what's that, freedom to something you don't own?). It'd be like, I have a bike for rental. A white man who doesn't know how to ride a bike asks to rent it, and I let him. A black man who is a very good cyclist asks to rent it, and I don't let him use it. The white man crashes my bike, and seriously damages it. The black man just goes to find another bike to borrow, from someone who will let him rent it. With this in mind, I'm the only one with anything to lose from making stupid decisions about who to rent my bike to. There's no need for the government to regulate it, just as there's no reason for the government to regulate employment policies.

But what if everyone had your mentality? You can say "I don't trust that black man with my bike, he can find another one," but what if everyone else thought the same thing, and he never got the bike he wanted to borrow? I know what you're going to say: "But not everyone does think like that! It's just me!" Yeah, I know. But a lot of people do. And if this black man is living in a town where everyone does, well, he's not going to get a bike anytime soon, now will he?

It's kind of like recycling (hear me out on this one). A person can throw a plastic bottle in a garbage can and think "Hey, it's just one bottle. No big deal." When at that very second, three hundred thousand people are thinking the exact same thing. You can tell yourself that you're just one person turning down a bike to a black man because he's black, but down the street there are two dozen people who are going to do the exact same thing.

Yes, you get hurt in the end because your bike got wrecked, but the black man still doesn't have his bike, and that's pretty shitty too.

[Berenjena]

With the exception of Churches, all businesses would banned from bias based on sexuality, nationwide.

What aspects of this hypothetical law would you be opposed to, if any?

I'm not certain if an exemption for Day Care Centers might be in order.
On one hand, you can argue for "tolerance".
On the other hand, you can argue against sexualization and confusion of young minds.

Because having gays or transsexuals near children will sexualise them! Beware! Beware!

Exactly. Just like hanging around tall people will make you tall, or hanging around Europeans will make you Polish, or hanging around fish make you breathe underwater.

The point is, I want superpowers.

[Siromizu]

Really? I would. If I wasn't hired for a job that I really wanted because I was white, I'd totally fight back. Now you're just being lazy.

I just can't see how anybody (including myself) has a right to something which doesn't belong to them.

Excuse my poor wording. What I meant was that think of two alternate realities (far-fetched, I know). In one, the black man is hired by a presigious medical research facility and eventually goes on (because he has the intelligence) to cure cancer, AIDS, and the common cold. In the other, every medical research facility turns him down because he is black, and he ends up working in fast food because that's the only place that'll hire him. Yes, it is a stretch, but still a sucky scenario.

By that logic, prestigious medical research facilities should hire everyone, because everyone has a chance at being the one to cure cancer until it's actually cured.

Furthermore, this isn't forcing a company to hire minorities. This is simply forcing a company to judge based on character and qualification rather than race. If it doesn't change the hiring process for some companies, so be it, but at least we know that the person who got the job was chosen based on merit rather than skin color.

Either way, it's forcing people to help with those who they may not want to help. I just don't think it's the government's place to tell businesses what they can and can't consider when selecting employees.

But what if everyone had your mentality? You can say "I don't trust that black man with my bike, he can find another one," but what if everyone else thought the same thing, and he never got the bike he wanted to borrow? I know what you're going to say: "But not everyone does think like that! It's just me!" Yeah, I know. But a lot of people do. And if this black man is living in a town where everyone does, well, he's not going to get a bike anytime soon, now will he?

It's kind of like recycling (hear me out on this one). A person can throw a plastic bottle in a garbage can and think "Hey, it's just one bottle. No big deal." When at that very second, three hundred thousand people are thinking the exact same thing. You can tell yourself that you're just one person turning down a bike to a black man because he's black, but down the street there are two dozen people who are going to do the exact same thing.

Yes, you get hurt in the end because your bike got wrecked, but the black man still doesn't have his bike, and that's pretty shitty too.

I just can't see that happening. I mean, eventually someone's going to realise "Hey, if I start a bike-rental company, I can make a huge profit because there are a bunch of black people that won't be able torent from anyone but me!" and they start getting a huge market share. It's only natural, then, that any business that wants to survive will get fed up with whities who can't ride ruining their bikes, and try to break into the black-people market, and in the end everything self-regulates. Basically, I'm saying that these bike rental companies have the right to refuse service, but that they will eventually suffer the consequences of that, without government intervention.

[Berenjena]

Really? I would. If I wasn't hired for a job that I really wanted because I was white, I'd totally fight back. Now you're just being lazy.

I just can't see how anybody (including myself) has a right to something which doesn't belong to them.

It's not that you are entitled to getting that job, it's that you're entitled to having a fair chance. If I fought back, my application was reconsidered, and based on qualifications I still lost the job to a guy who wasn't white, I'd be fine with that, as long as I knew that it was based on my skills rather than race.

Excuse my poor wording. What I meant was that think of two alternate realities (far-fetched, I know). In one, the black man is hired by a presigious medical research facility and eventually goes on (because he has the intelligence) to cure cancer, AIDS, and the common cold. In the other, every medical research facility turns him down because he is black, and he ends up working in fast food because that's the only place that'll hire him. Yes, it is a stretch, but still a sucky scenario.

By that logic, prestigious medical research facilities should hire everyone, because everyone has a chance at being the one to cure cancer until it's actually cured.

Okay, well, no. Not everyone does. I'm saying that this man is a bright student with a medical degree, not some schmuck off the street.

Furthermore, this isn't forcing a company to hire minorities. This is simply forcing a company to judge based on character and qualification rather than race. If it doesn't change the hiring process for some companies, so be it, but at least we know that the person who got the job was chosen based on merit rather than skin color.

Either way, it's forcing people to help with those who they may not want to help. I just don't think it's the government's place to tell businesses what they can and can't consider when selecting employees.

So you're saying that you think the signs way back in the day that read "Irish/black/polack/jew need not apply" were just, because it was a business? Refusing the opportunity to people based on appearance is okay?

I know you don't live here, but one of the biggest cornerstones in this country is equal opportunity. Refusing to hire a black man because he's black is not equal opportunity.

But what if everyone had your mentality? You can say "I don't trust that black man with my bike, he can find another one," but what if everyone else thought the same thing, and he never got the bike he wanted to borrow? I know what you're going to say: "But not everyone does think like that! It's just me!" Yeah, I know. But a lot of people do. And if this black man is living in a town where everyone does, well, he's not going to get a bike anytime soon, now will he?

It's kind of like recycling (hear me out on this one). A person can throw a plastic bottle in a garbage can and think "Hey, it's just one bottle. No big deal." When at that very second, three hundred thousand people are thinking the exact same thing. You can tell yourself that you're just one person turning down a bike to a black man because he's black, but down the street there are two dozen people who are going to do the exact same thing.

Yes, you get hurt in the end because your bike got wrecked, but the black man still doesn't have his bike, and that's pretty shitty too.

I just can't see that happening. I mean, eventually someone's going to realise "Hey, if I start a bike-rental company, I can make a huge profit because there are a bunch of black people that won't be able torent from anyone but me!" and they start getting a huge market share. It's only natural, then, that any business that wants to survive will get fed up with whities who can't ride ruining their bikes, and try to break into the black-people market, and in the end everything self-regulates. Basically, I'm saying that these bike rental companies have the right to refuse service, but that they will eventually suffer the consequences of that, without government intervention.

Again, that's an if. A likely if, but an if nonetheless. Say this guy was part of the only black family in bumblefuck Alabama, population 200. Nobody lets him borrow a bike, because everyone in the town hates black people. Now, you're left with a town of people with broken bikes. Nobody can get anywhere anymore, all because they didn't trust that black fellow over there who was actually pretty good at riding bikes.

[Ifreann]

I just can't see how anybody (including myself) has a right to something which doesn't belong to them.

The right it not to the job, but rather to be treated fairly and judged on your merits, not the colour of your skin or who you like to fuck.

Either way, it's forcing people to help with those who they may not want to help. I just don't think it's the government's place to tell businesses what they can and can't consider when selecting employees.

Employing someone isn't helping them. They're doing something for you, you're compensating them for it.

Basically, I'm saying that these bike rental companies have the right to refuse service, but that they will eventually suffer the consequences of that, without government intervention.

I think it says a lot that the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination thinks people should just deal with it and hope it'll go away eventually. Fuck that. Fuck waiting and hoping that everything will just work itself out.

[Siromizu]

It's not that you are entitled to getting that job, it's that you're entitled to having a fair chance. If I fought back, my application was reconsidered, and based on qualifications I still lost the job to a guy who wasn't white, I'd be fine with that, as long as I knew that it was based on my skills rather than race.

You have an equal opportunity to find an employer who will hire you.

Okay, well, no. Not everyone does. I'm saying that this man is a bright student with a medical degree, not some schmuck off the street.

You can't say that with any certainty. Even if someone with a medical degree discovers the cure, you can't say that it was never possible for Homeless Joe to accidentally figure something out.

So you're saying that you think the signs way back in the day that read "Irish/black/polack/jew need not apply" were just, because it was a business? Refusing the opportunity to people based on appearance is okay?

I know you don't live here, but one of the biggest cornerstones in this country is equal opportunity. Refusing to hire a black man because he's black is not equal opportunity.

Certainly, it's not "fair" on the individual, since they are being judged as appropriate or inappropriate based on something outside of their control, but the fact if the matter is that unless someone is at risk of being harmed, the government should not regulate how people use things that belong to them. There is equality in the opportunity to apply for a job; you can't force people to do things that they don't want to with their private property.

Again, that's an if. A likely if, but an if nonetheless. Say this guy was part of the only black family in bumblefuck Alabama, population 200. Nobody lets him borrow a bike, because everyone in the town hates black people. Now, you're left with a town of people with broken bikes. Nobody can get anywhere anymore, all because they didn't trust that black fellow over there who was actually pretty good at riding bikes.

Well, then, it serves them right for making poor decisions. They did as they saw fit with their own private property, and are worse off for it. While it may be unfortunate for the town (depending on how sympathetic you are towards the racist bike-rental-shop owners) and the black cyclist, at least there wasn't any government meddling with people's property rights.

The right it not to the job, but rather to be treated fairly and judged on your merits, not the colour of your skin or who you like to fuck.

And why do employers not have freedom to judge potential employees on whatever they want? Ultimately, it comes down to who has what the other wants; if an employer is desperate enough, then maybe they will change their hiring policy. Ultimately, I think that freedom of opinion and freedom to do as you will with what belongs to you, is orders of magnitude more important than freedom to have others throw you a bone.

Employing someone isn't helping them. They're doing something for you, you're compensating them for it.

Sure it is. You're helping them by giving them an avenue by which to amass funds, and ultimately, that's what they're interested in. Why should employers not choose who they help based on whatever they want?

I think it says a lot that the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination thinks people should just deal with it and hope it'll go away eventually. Fuck that. Fuck waiting and hoping that everything will just work itself out.

Who's "the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination"? If you see him, get him to have a word with me.
Ultimately, it's not to do with "hoping that everything will just work itself out" so much as it's about knowing that at least someone will realise that they can either make a profit, or avoid financial disaster, by doing something that their contemporaries won't, and knowing that as soon as that happens, everyone wants in. In the very unlikely situation that nobody catches on, then they all fail, and justice is served.

[Berenjena]

It's not that you are entitled to getting that job, it's that you're entitled to having a fair chance. If I fought back, my application was reconsidered, and based on qualifications I still lost the job to a guy who wasn't white, I'd be fine with that, as long as I knew that it was based on my skills rather than race.

You have an equal opportunity to find an employer who will hire you.

However, you should have the equal opportunity to not have to look for an employer who doesn't hire black people. If nobody in Detroit will hire a black person, is the black family who lives there expected to just get out and find someone who wants them? That's fucked up.

Okay, well, no. Not everyone does. I'm saying that this man is a bright student with a medical degree, not some schmuck off the street.

You can't say that with any certainty. Even if someone with a medical degree discovers the cure, you can't say that it was never possible for Homeless Joe to accidentally figure something out.

Yeah, but the odds of that are astronomically low. Accidently find the cure for cancer? Please. If you're gonna make a joke, at least make it funny.

So you're saying that you think the signs way back in the day that read "Irish/black/polack/jew need not apply" were just, because it was a business? Refusing the opportunity to people based on appearance is okay?

I know you don't live here, but one of the biggest cornerstones in this country is equal opportunity. Refusing to hire a black man because he's black is not equal opportunity.

Certainly, it's not "fair" on the individual, since they are being judged as appropriate or inappropriate based on something outside of their control, but the fact if the matter is that unless someone is at risk of being harmed, the government should not regulate how people use things that belong to them. There is equality in the opportunity to apply for a job; you can't force people to do things that they don't want to with their private property.

Ultimately, it's not private property. Though it is your business it's not under your complete control. If that were the case then private schools would still be able to keep people out of their doors based on race. Businesses would still be able to prevent black people from eating at their tables.

Again, that's an if. A likely if, but an if nonetheless. Say this guy was part of the only black family in bumblefuck Alabama, population 200. Nobody lets him borrow a bike, because everyone in the town hates black people. Now, you're left with a town of people with broken bikes. Nobody can get anywhere anymore, all because they didn't trust that black fellow over there who was actually pretty good at riding bikes.

Well, then, it serves them right for making poor decisions. They did as they saw fit with their own private property, and are worse off for it. While it may be unfortunate for the town (depending on how sympathetic you are towards the racist bike-rental-shop owners) and the black cyclist, at least there wasn't any government meddling with people's property rights.[/quote]
This one actually made me laugh. Kudos.

I think it says a lot that the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination thinks people should just deal with it and hope it'll go away eventually. Fuck that. Fuck waiting and hoping that everything will just work itself out.

Who's "the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination"? If you see him, get him to have a word with me.
Ultimately, it's not to do with "hoping that everything will just work itself out" so much as it's about knowing that at least someone will realise that they can either make a profit, or avoid financial disaster, by doing something that their contemporaries won't, and knowing that as soon as that happens, everyone wants in. In the very unlikely situation that nobody catches on, then they all fail, and justice is served.

By what you say here, it's apparent that you do know that it's unfair that blacks get discriminated against in the hiring process, but, like Ifreann said, you just want to wait it out?

"Look, I know times are rough. But eventually, whether it be in 20 or 200 years, people will figure it out for themselves that what they're doing isn't best for themselves and the universe will right itself."

Yeah, fuck that.

They all fail? Justice is served? Why don't we do what humanity is supposed to do and prevent each other from failing? Why don't we help each other realize that mistakes are being made? Unless, of course, you just prefer to sit on your fat ass eating Cheetos all day, in which case I hope you have a very fulfilling life married to your laptop.

[Siromizu]

However, you should have the equal opportunity to not have to look for an employer who doesn't hire black people. If nobody in Detroit will hire a black person, is the black family who lives there expected to just get out and find someone who wants them? That's fucked up.

Sure, why not? It should not be a legal obligation of employers to give a shit about anyone else, except to the extent that they are not to actively harm others.

Yeah, but the odds of that are astronomically low. Accidently find the cure for cancer? Please. If you're gonna make a joke, at least make it funny.

Until a cure is found, I think it's fair to say that the odds of anyone finding a cure for cancer are astronomically low.

So you're saying that you think the signs way back in the day that read "Irish/black/polack/jew need not apply" were just, because it was a business? Refusing the opportunity to people based on appearance is okay?

Ultimately, it's not private property. Though it is your business it's not under your complete control. If that were the case then private schools would still be able to keep people out of their doors based on race. Businesses would still be able to prevent black people from eating at their tables.

And they should be. Just because they can doesn't meant they will.

This one actually made me laugh. Kudos.

I have no valid response so I'll just be dismissive and hope nobody notices.

Kudos.

By what you say here, it's apparent that you do know that it's unfair that blacks get discriminated against in the hiring process, but, like Ifreann said, you just want to wait it out?

"Look, I know times are rough. But eventually, whether it be in 20 or 200 years, people will figure it out for themselves that what they're doing isn't best for themselves and the universe will right itself."

Yeah, fuck that.

They all fail? Justice is served? Why don't we do what humanity is supposed to do and prevent each other from failing? Why don't we help each other realize that mistakes are being made? Unless, of course, you just prefer to sit on your fat ass eating Cheetos all day, in which case I hope you have a very fulfilling life married to your laptop.

I don't want to "wait it out" as such. It's more that I think people have a right to be unfair in one way as long as they have a right to be unfair in any other way.

Who are you to say what "humanity is supposed to do"? Furthermore, how do you know that we're better off in the long run "solving" a problem now rather than letting it sort itself out properly? As long as its something within society (unlike, say, environmental issues), you don't know that, and so while you're free to think so, you can't say that it is necessarily the truth.

Besides, that whole "leave it be" thing only applies in that way in the worst-case-scenario, which I can pretty much guarantee is not what we have. In anything better than the worst-case-scenario, things sort themselves out pretty quickly.

I quite like Cheetos.
But I'm not overweight, laptops are shit compared to real computers, and I don't really want to marry an inanimate object.

[Berenjena]

I don't want to "wait it out" as such. It's more that I think people have a right to be unfair in one way as long as they have a right to be unfair in any other way.

Who are you to say what "humanity is supposed to do"? Furthermore, how do you know that we're better off in the long run "solving" a problem now rather than letting it sort itself out properly? As long as its something within society (unlike, say, environmental issues), you don't know that, and so while you're free to think so, you can't say that it is necessarily the truth.

Besides, that whole "leave it be" thing only applies in that way in the worst-case-scenario, which I can pretty much guarantee is not what we have. In anything better than the worst-case-scenario, things sort themselves out pretty quickly.

I quite like Cheetos.
But I'm not overweight, laptops are shit compared to real computers, and I don't really want to marry an inanimate object.

Your apathy towards problems is almost sickening. Do you use this same logic in mathematics?

"Sorry, professor, but i think it's best for this equation to just solve itself properly. No need for me to intervene."

I'm not gonna debate with you anymore. It's obvious that you have a much more...lethargic approach to solving issues. I'd hate to see you as a black man in the 1960s, because with your attitude you'd just lay down and take it and hope that the dirty work cleans up itself.

[Ifreann]

The right it not to the job, but rather to be treated fairly and judged on your merits, not the colour of your skin or who you like to fuck.

And why do employers not have freedom to judge potential employees on whatever they want? Ultimately, it comes down to who has what the other wants; if an employer is desperate enough, then maybe they will change their hiring policy. Ultimately, I think that freedom of opinion and freedom to do as you will with what belongs to you, is orders of magnitude more important than freedom to have others throw you a bone.

Of course you do. I think ensuring equality of opportunity is more important than pandering to whiny bigots.

Employing someone isn't helping them. They're doing something for you, you're compensating them for it.

Sure it is. You're helping them by giving them an avenue by which to amass funds, and ultimately, that's what they're interested in.

They're also helping you by allowing your business to function and thus amass funds.

Why should employers not choose who they help based on whatever they want?

Because ensuring equality of opportunity is more important than pandering to whiny bigots.

I think it says a lot that the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination thinks people should just deal with it and hope it'll go away eventually. Fuck that. Fuck waiting and hoping that everything will just work itself out.

Who's "the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination"? If you see him, get him to have a word with me.
Ultimately, it's not to do with "hoping that everything will just work itself out" so much as it's about knowing that at least someone will realise that they can either make a profit, or avoid financial disaster, by doing something that their contemporaries won't, and knowing that as soon as that happens, everyone wants in. In the very unlikely situation that nobody catches on, then they all fail, and justice is served.

You hope. You hope that the magic of the Free Market Fairy will bring about a state of equality, so you want to sit on your ass and let the fairydust sort everything out.

[Knowlandia]

I'm not sure if this is constitutional. Even if it is I could see alot of gray area that would make it unenforcable.

[Desperate Measures]

The right it not to the job, but rather to be treated fairly and judged on your merits, not the colour of your skin or who you like to fuck.

And why do employers not have freedom to judge potential employees on whatever they want? Ultimately, it comes down to who has what the other wants; if an employer is desperate enough, then maybe they will change their hiring policy. Ultimately, I think that freedom of opinion and freedom to do as you will with what belongs to you, is orders of magnitude more important than freedom to have others throw you a bone.

Of course you do. I think ensuring equality of opportunity is more important than pandering to whiny bigots.

Employing someone isn't helping them. They're doing something for you, you're compensating them for it.

Sure it is. You're helping them by giving them an avenue by which to amass funds, and ultimately, that's what they're interested in.

They're also helping you by allowing your business to function and thus amass funds.

Why should employers not choose who they help based on whatever they want?

Because ensuring equality of opportunity is more important than pandering to whiny bigots.

I think it says a lot that the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination thinks people should just deal with it and hope it'll go away eventually. Fuck that. Fuck waiting and hoping that everything will just work itself out.

Who's "the guy who has never been on the wrong side of discrimination"? If you see him, get him to have a word with me.
Ultimately, it's not to do with "hoping that everything will just work itself out" so much as it's about knowing that at least someone will realise that they can either make a profit, or avoid financial disaster, by doing something that their contemporaries won't, and knowing that as soon as that happens, everyone wants in. In the very unlikely situation that nobody catches on, then they all fail, and justice is served.

You hope. You hope that the magic of the Free Market Fairy will bring about a state of equality, so you want to sit on your ass and let the fairydust sort everything out.

Feel like the past 4 or 5 pages have been on repeat?

[Ifreann]

Feel like the past 4 or 5 pages have been on repeat?

Gods yes.