Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Telconi]

They shouldn't.

Hence why the Civil Rights Act and anti discrimination laws are needed.

I dont follow.

[Galloism]

The government deciding who you should enter into interpersonal relationships with is a bad thing.

And why should someone have to worry about personal things or what they post on social media affecting if they keep their job?

It's worth noting this has been a problem in the US for a while, and in England even police are getting in on the game of threatening peoples' jobs for what they post on social media.

And I wish I were making that up.

[San Lumen]

Hence why the Civil Rights Act and anti discrimination laws are needed.

I dont follow.

Having those acts prevents that sort of thing. Your employer can't fire you if they find out your dating someone non white or that your gay.

[Telconi]

I dont follow.

Having those acts prevents that sort of thing. Your employer can't fire you if they find out your dating someone non white or that your gay.

Yes I'm aware of what the laws are. I just dont understand the draconian leap from "I dislike X" to "ban all X"

[San Lumen]

Having those acts prevents that sort of thing. Your employer can't fire you if they find out your dating someone non white or that your gay.

Yes I'm aware of what the laws are. I just dont understand the draconian leap from "I dislike X" to "ban all X"

What are you referring to

[Kowani]

Having those acts prevents that sort of thing. Your employer can't fire you if they find out your dating someone non white or that your gay.

Yes I'm aware of what the laws are. I just dont understand the draconian leap from "I dislike X" to "ban all X"

Because X in this case results in an overall worse existence for the majority.

[Telconi]

Yes I'm aware of what the laws are. I just dont understand the draconian leap from "I dislike X" to "ban all X"

Because X in this case results in an overall worse existence for the majority.

Debatable.

[The Tomerlands]

Regardless what you may think. I say owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gays. And it should be a religious right to not have to hire them in your company.

No. If there is discrimination then bias and bigotry will continue. Would you say the same the same thing about blacks or Christians being refused service as well?

[Kowani]

Because X in this case results in an overall worse existence for the majority.

Debatable.

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

[The Tomerlands]

Debatable.

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

But muh individual right!

[Telconi]

Yes I'm aware of what the laws are. I just dont understand the draconian leap from "I dislike X" to "ban all X"

What are you referring to

You dislike discrimination, and you therefore believe that it should be banned. I dont folliw the logic flow directly from disliking a thing, to banning a thing.

[Telconi]

Debatable.

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

The real one. Being able to pick your employees and customers without fear of retaliation is a good thing.

[Galloism]

Debatable.

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

It's actually worth noting that equality of opportunity can only be a good thing from an economic perspective.

After all, that's how you select for the highest performers in a given field - by giving everyone equality of opportunity. If you reject John because he's black or he's male, without taking into account the relevant qualifications, capabilities, etc, you will, as a function of averages, get a lower quality of worker because you're rejecting higher quality employees for lower quality ones due to statistics and sampling.

This can have tremendous effects on the market as a whole in aggregate.

[San Lumen]

What are you referring to

You dislike discrimination, and you therefore believe that it should be banned. I dont folliw the logic flow directly from disliking a thing, to banning a thing.

You can't ban peoples thoughts but you can be enforcing those beliefs.

[Kowani]

What are you referring to

You dislike discrimination, and you therefore believe that it should be banned. I dont folliw the logic flow directly from disliking a thing, to banning a thing.

I explained it before. It makes things worse on average for the collective.

[San Lumen]

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

The real one. Being able to pick your employees and customers without fear of retaliation is a good thing.

No non-whites need apply in a job posting would be perfectly ok with you?

[Telconi]

You dislike discrimination, and you therefore believe that it should be banned. I dont folliw the logic flow directly from disliking a thing, to banning a thing.

You can't ban peoples thoughts but you can be enforcing those beliefs.

You *can* ban a lot of things...

[Telconi]

The real one. Being able to pick your employees and customers without fear of retaliation is a good thing.

No non-whites need apply in a job posting would be perfectly ok with you?

No.

[Kowani]

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

The real one. Being able to pick your employees and customers without fear of retaliation is a good thing.

The Civil Rights Act begs to differ. Basic economics begs to differ. Heck, history begs to differ. Not only do you depress the market, you also create a resentful underclass who would rather not be forced to compete for the 3 jobs available. You think they’ll give two shits about your “rights” when violence erupts? See, when rights are arbitrary, for you have yet to prove a right to freedom of association, then one should do what increases the basic wellbeing.

[Galloism]

The real one. Being able to pick your employees and customers without fear of retaliation is a good thing.

No non-whites need apply in a job posting would be perfectly ok with you?

It actually isn't that uncommon to see ads that say "women only".

I've filed a couple EEOC complaints personally on the subject.

[Kowani]

In what world has giving business owners the ability to discriminate against minorities in services and hiring ever resulted in tangible benefits for the collective?

It's actually worth noting that equality of opportunity can only be a good thing from an economic perspective.

After all, that's how you select for the highest performers in a given field - by giving everyone equality of opportunity. If you reject John because he's black or he's male, without taking into account the relevant qualifications, capabilities, etc, you will, as a function of averages, get a lower quality of worker because you're rejecting higher quality employees for lower quality ones due to statistics and sampling.

This can have tremendous effects on the market as a whole in aggregate.

Thank you.

[Telconi]

The real one. Being able to pick your employees and customers without fear of retaliation is a good thing.

The Civil Rights Act begs to differ. Basic economics begs to differ. Heck, history begs to differ. Not only do you depress the market, you also create a resentful underclass who would rather not be forced to compete for the 3 jobs available. You think they’ll give two shits about your “rights” when violence erupts? See, when rights are arbitrary, for you have yet to prove a right to freedom of association, then one should do what increases the basic wellbeing.

The situation is hardly as black and white as you make it, both options have benefits and detriments. How those are weighed is ultimately subjective. If a person values a business owner's freedom of association more than a minority's job prospects then there you go.

As for proving rights, this is a preposterous argument. Rights are not provable. Thus a right to equal employment opportunity it is equally unproven.

[San Lumen]

The Civil Rights Act begs to differ. Basic economics begs to differ. Heck, history begs to differ. Not only do you depress the market, you also create a resentful underclass who would rather not be forced to compete for the 3 jobs available. You think they’ll give two shits about your “rights” when violence erupts? See, when rights are arbitrary, for you have yet to prove a right to freedom of association, then one should do what increases the basic wellbeing.

The situation is hardly as black and white as you make it, both options have benefits and detriments. How those are weighed is ultimately subjective. If a person values a business owner's freedom of association more than a minority's job prospects then there you go.

As for proving rights, this is a preposterous argument. Rights are not provable. Thus a right to equal employment opportunity it is equally unproven.

Where is this alleged freedom of association?

[Telconi]

The situation is hardly as black and white as you make it, both options have benefits and detriments. How those are weighed is ultimately subjective. If a person values a business owner's freedom of association more than a minority's job prospects then there you go.

As for proving rights, this is a preposterous argument. Rights are not provable. Thus a right to equal employment opportunity it is equally unproven.

Where is this alleged freedom of association?

Where are any rights? They exist in people's minds.

[Byzconia]

It’s less of a point and more of a cynical quip, really. Irrational hatred generally isn’t counter towards society functioning, depending on whom it’s directed at. A sad truth but a truth nonetheless.

Not counter towards society functioning, but counter to it functioning well. I don't think anyone would argue that Nazi Germany functioned (herr herr Godwin's Law), but I doubt anyone but Neo-Nazis would try to argue that it was a society anyone would want to live in.

Could you explain what’s unclear about it? I’m genuinely confused about your confusion here.

Specifically, your word choice. You argued that it's not a right, but then said the government regulates discrimination because it infringes on people's rights? At least, that's how I read it. I recognize that could be a misinterpretation, hence my confusion.

As for the rest, the “right” to not be discriminated is, at best, a legal right best applied to the federal and state governments solely. Otherwise it infringes upon the natural rights others. That is my objection to it.

I've already stated my feelings on natural vs. legal rights.

In which case, I can see preventing discrimination to be a possibly valid decision. I believe I’ve previously brought up in which scenarios that is.

What, specifically, are you referring to here? Sorry, just not sure what exactly this is in response to.

Hobbs and I might have differing ideas on what constitutes natural rights. To me, natural rights are based in one question: What allows an individual to best propagate their continued existence in a stateless society? To that end, killing another human being can situationally aid in that endeavor but it isn’t a right in and of itself. Allowing for the right to self defense is rooted in the right to exist.[/quote]

But you can argue that it's more than situational. Killing off all of the males in your area, and enslaving all the females, would definitely allow individual propagation--the former are competition for resources and mates, the latter are the means to create offspring.