Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Des-Bal]

Why is it on me?

Because you're calling upon the state to issue a demand backed by violence.

[The New California Republic]

Actually, the burden is on you to demonstrate why a business should have their freedom to do those things restricted.

Why is it on me?

I think it comes from the whole burden of proof thing, even though it could possibly be argued that, since the discrimination is what is setting this chain of events off in the first place, it is the people doing the discriminating who are the ones that need to prove that their discrimination is justified.

But obviously that argument is over and above any strictly legal reasons, and doesn't affect them whatsoever.

[Scomagia]

Actually, the burden is on you to demonstrate why a business should have their freedom to do those things restricted.

Why is it on me?

Because businesses and the individuals that run them have natural rights to associate or disassociate with whomever they please. Any restrictions to those rights needs to be justified. You have unlimited rights to free speech, for example, and have no burden to argue for why that is so. Anyone who wants to restrict those rights has to make a reasoned argument as to why those rights need to be restricted in a certain way (e.g. incitement to violence, fraud, criminal harassment).

[San Lumen]

Why is it on me?

Because businesses and the individuals that run them have natural rights to associate or disassociate with whomever they please. Any restrictions to those rights needs to be justified. You have unlimited rights to free speech, for example, and have no burden to argue for why that is so. Anyone who wants to restrict those rights has to make a reasoned argument as to why those rights need to be restricted in a certain way (e.g. incitement to violence, fraud, criminal harassment).

So if my employer discovers I have a boyfriend they should be allowed to fire me?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because businesses and the individuals that run them have natural rights to associate or disassociate with whomever they please. Any restrictions to those rights needs to be justified. You have unlimited rights to free speech, for example, and have no burden to argue for why that is so. Anyone who wants to restrict those rights has to make a reasoned argument as to why those rights need to be restricted in a certain way (e.g. incitement to violence, fraud, criminal harassment).

So if my employer discovers I have a boyfriend they should be allowed to fire me?

Better question
Is your employer allowed to not hire you if your black, or a woman, or Jewish?

[Scomagia]

Actually, the burden is on you to demonstrate why a business should have their freedom to do those things restricted.

Because firing people because traits assigned at birth is wrong

Wrong by whose standard? I myself find it preposterous to fire people over such things. However, that does not create a desire in me to force people to behave how I think they should.

But if that’s not enough of a reason then we should just revoke the civil rights act to begin with

It isn't enough of a reason. I support some parts of the Civil Rights Act, specifically preventing the government from discriminating against some traits, and not others, such as forcing private businesses not to discriminate based on certain traits.

[San Lumen]

Because firing people because traits assigned at birth is wrong

Wrong by whose standard? I myself find it preposterous to fire people over such things. However, that does not create a desire in me to force people to behave how I think they should.

But if that’s not enough of a reason then we should just revoke the civil rights act to begin with

It isn't enough of a reason. I support some parts of the Civil Rights Act, specifically preventing the government from discriminating against some traits, and not others, such as forcing private businesses not to discriminate based on certain traits.

What parts don't you support?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because firing people because traits assigned at birth is wrong

Wrong by whose standard? I myself find it preposterous to fire people over such things. However, that does not create a desire in me to force people to behave how I think they should.

But if that’s not enough of a reason then we should just revoke the civil rights act to begin with

It isn't enough of a reason. I support some parts of the Civil Rights Act, specifically preventing the government from discriminating against some traits, and not others, such as forcing private businesses not to discriminate based on certain traits.

And there you go
You do t believe discrimination is bad when it’s done by private citizens
I clearly can’t argue that

[Des-Bal]

Better question
Is your employer allowed to not hire you if your black, or a woman, or Jewish?

That's actually a worse question because we're talking about what should be rather than what is and the only reason you can't be fired for those things is a law that spells out five categories that are not sexual orientation.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Better question
Is your employer allowed to not hire you if your black, or a woman, or Jewish?

That's actually a worse question because we're talking about what should be rather than what is and the only reason you can't be fired for those things is a law that spells out five categories that are not sexual orientation.

Except it’s the same thing
We’re not asking about what is legal we’re asking what should be legal

[Scomagia]

Because businesses and the individuals that run them have natural rights to associate or disassociate with whomever they please. Any restrictions to those rights needs to be justified. You have unlimited rights to free speech, for example, and have no burden to argue for why that is so. Anyone who wants to restrict those rights has to make a reasoned argument as to why those rights need to be restricted in a certain way (e.g. incitement to violence, fraud, criminal harassment).

So if my employer discovers I have a boyfriend they should be allowed to fire me?

You're framing the question wrong. It's not about what they're allowed to do, since by default they do have that right. What you're really asking is whether or not The State should be able to restrict their rights to discriminate based on some factors and not others. You need to make a case for why The State ought to be able to do so.

Personally, I believe they shouldn't have their rights to free association restricted, especially when yours are not similarly restricted. How much sense does it make that an employer has to hire you regardless of sexual orientation, but at the same time you can quit because of the employer's orientation?

[Des-Bal]

Except it’s the same thing
We’re not asking about what is legal we’re asking what should be legal

Then it's a bad question because I was referring to all such laws.

[Scomagia]

Wrong by whose standard? I myself find it preposterous to fire people over such things. However, that does not create a desire in me to force people to behave how I think they should.

It isn't enough of a reason. I support some parts of the Civil Rights Act, specifically preventing the government from discriminating against some traits, and not others, such as forcing private businesses not to discriminate based on certain traits.

And there you go
You do t believe discrimination is bad when it’s done by private citizens
I clearly can’t argue that

So, do you think individuals should be punished if they quit based on certain traits their manager possesses?

[Scomagia]

Wrong by whose standard? I myself find it preposterous to fire people over such things. However, that does not create a desire in me to force people to behave how I think they should.

It isn't enough of a reason. I support some parts of the Civil Rights Act, specifically preventing the government from discriminating against some traits, and not others, such as forcing private businesses not to discriminate based on certain traits.

What parts don't you support?

It's right there in the post. I do not support restricting the right to free association for private businesses. I do support such a restriction on the government.

[San Lumen]

What parts don't you support?

It's right there in the post. I do not support restricting the right to free association for private businesses. I do support such a restriction on the government.

Why should a store or corporation be able to say we dont hire blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, muslims or LGBT people?

[Internationalist Bastard]

And there you go
You do t believe discrimination is bad when it’s done by private citizens
I clearly can’t argue that

So, do you think individuals should be punished if they quit based on certain traits their manager possesses?

No because power dynamics
If I quit, clearly I’m comfortable with losing my job
If I’m fired, I could be up the creek without a paddle
If I quit there’s plenty of new people you can hire
If I’m fired I might not find a new job

[Des-Bal]

Why should a store or corporation be able to say we dont hire blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, muslims or LGBT people?

You're like in a loop.

[San Lumen]

Why should a store or corporation be able to say we dont hire blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, muslims or LGBT people?

You're like in a loop.

No I dont understand why discrimination ought to be allowed?

[Scomagia]

It's right there in the post. I do not support restricting the right to free association for private businesses. I do support such a restriction on the government.

Why should a store or corporation be able to say we dont hire blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, muslims or LGBT people?

Again, free association is a natural right. You need to demonstrate why they should be restricted from doing those things.

Do you support restricting individuals rights to quit for discriminatory reasons? Should someone be penalized for leaving their job because their boss is black?

[Internationalist Bastard]

You're like in a loop.

No I dont understand why discrimination ought to be allowed?

Some people believe restrictions on business are very serious rights violations
I think not being hired because of my birth circumstances is discrimination
We’ll never solve this problem so I’m just resigned to it

[Des-Bal]

No I dont understand why discrimination ought to be allowed?

Yeah that was clear when you asked this exact question and it was explained why the question was flawed. The issue isn't why let them it's why stop them. I decline to see the decisions of private businesses on who they will and will not associate with as an area that's necessary or appropriate for the governmdnt, especially the federal
Government to involve itself in.

[San Lumen]

Why should a store or corporation be able to say we dont hire blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, muslims or LGBT people?

Again, free association is a natural right. You need to demonstrate why they should be restricted from doing those things.

Do you support restricting individuals rights to quit for discriminatory reasons? Should someone be penalized for leaving their job because their boss is black?

No as that is not discrimination.

[San Lumen]

No I dont understand why discrimination ought to be allowed?

Yeah that was clear when you asked this exact question and it was explained why the question was flawed. The issue isn't why let them it's why stop them. I decline to see the decisions of private businesses on who they will and will not associate with as an area that's necessary or appropriate for the governmdnt, especially the federal
Government to involve itself in.

So I should have to hide my identity at work and hope my employer doesnt find im gay and if they fire me a result oh well?

[Scomagia]

So, do you think individuals should be punished if they quit based on certain traits their manager possesses?

No because power dynamics
If I quit, clearly I’m comfortable with losing my job
If I’m fired, I could be up the creek without a paddle
If I quit there’s plenty of new people you can hire
If I’m fired I might not find a new job

That's obviously stupid reasoning.
If you are a skilled employee, it may actually be incredibly difficult to replace you. Depending on the company and your position within it, your departure could actually be heavily destabilizing, on par with the difficulties faced by a newly unemployed peeson.

You are being inconsistent with regards to free association.

[Des-Bal]

No as that is not discrimination.

"I won't work for a black person" isn't discrimination? Okay, what if you're a contractor?