Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Des-Bal]

Therefore i should have to hide my sexual orientation because my employer doesnt like gay people? Why should I have to worry about being fired because I posted a photo on social media?

You should face fines for bigotry. Why should you be denied service for someone you'd didnt choose?

You are once again asking the wrong question.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Why should you be compelled by threat of violence to interact with people you do not want to interact with?

You shouldnt, you just shouldnt have any power if you wish to.

[Scomagia]

Again. Wrong. Question.

Why should you be compelled by threat of violence to interact with people you do not want to interact with?

Because if you are open to the public your hire or serve all or none at all.

Why? Justify your position.

[San Lumen]

Therefore i should have to hide my sexual orientation because my employer doesnt like gay people? Why should I have to worry about being fired because I posted a photo on social media?

You should face fines for bigotry. Why should you be denied service for someone you'd didnt choose?

You are once again asking the wrong question.

Why should bigotry and discrimination be allowed? People in the south during Jim Crow should have just said oh well?

[Scomagia]

Why should you be compelled by threat of violence to interact with people you do not want to interact with?

You shouldnt, you just shouldnt have any power if you wish to.

Dude, we're done. Don't waste your time replying to my posts because I'm not going to engage with you.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Why? Justify your position.

Because they exist within the territory of the state.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Dude, we're done. Don't waste your time replying to my posts because I'm not going to engage with you.

That's up to you.

[Scomagia]

You are once again asking the wrong question.

Why should bigotry and discrimination be allowed? People in the south during Jim Crow should have just said oh well?

Bigotry and discrimination are a part of free association. In the absence of the threat of violence from the state, you would be perfectly free to do those thibgs. It is your burden to show why state violence should be used to restrict those behaviors.

[Des-Bal]

Why should bigotry and discrimination be allowed? People in the south during Jim Crow should have just said oh well?

1. Wrong question. It's a riddle to me that you keep asking because you know it's the wrong question and I have already answered repeatedly. You are repeating the same fucking thing and I don't know what you think it's doing.

2. Jim Crow was the STATE enforcing discrimination.

[San Lumen]

Why should bigotry and discrimination be allowed? People in the south during Jim Crow should have just said oh well?

1. Wrong question. It's a riddle to me that you keep asking because you know it's the wrong question and I have already answered repeatedly. You are repeating the same fucking thing and I don't know what you think it's doing.

2. Jim Crow was the STATE enforcing discrimination.

How is that different?

[Pagan Trapistan]

You are once again asking the wrong question.

Should the state enact violence against institutional discrimination? Yes, it should.

[Scomagia]

Why should bigotry and discrimination be allowed? People in the south during Jim Crow should have just said oh well?

1. Wrong question. It's a riddle to me that you keep asking because you know it's the wrong question and I have already answered repeatedly. You are repeating the same fucking thing and I don't know what you think it's doing.

2. Jim Crow was the STATE enforcing discrimination.

I think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rights, honestly. San Lumen thinks employment is a right, somehow, and that you don't have to justify restricting free association for some and not for others.

[Des-Bal]

How is that different?

It's pretty much the same.

State mandates discrimination: Private citizens have their freedoms curtailed by the government dictating their business decisions.
State enforces discrimination: Private citizens have their freedoms curtailed by the government dictating their business decisions.

[San Lumen]

1. Wrong question. It's a riddle to me that you keep asking because you know it's the wrong question and I have already answered repeatedly. You are repeating the same fucking thing and I don't know what you think it's doing.

2. Jim Crow was the STATE enforcing discrimination.

I think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rights, honestly. San Lumen thinks employment is a right, somehow, and that you don't have to justify restricting free association for some and not for others.

You have a right not to be discriminated against. You dont chose your race or sexual orientation. Why should I have to worry about what i post on social media and being fired as a result because my manager is a bigot and I was not aware of this when they hired me?

[Des-Bal]

You have a right not to be discriminated against. You dont chose your race or sexual orientation. Why should I have to worry about what i post on social media and being fired as a result because my manager is a bigot and I was not aware of this when they hired me?

By now you have to have realized that no matter how many times you ask the wrong question it the answer remains the same?

[Pagan Trapistan]

It is your burden to show why state violence should be used to restrict those behaviors.

Within the territory of the state employment should be discriminated on the basis of merit and for no other reason.

For public order in addition to moral reasons. A state without the best talent does not function as well. Discrimination is a violence against the public, whose territory the operation resides within. It is criminal corruption.

[San Lumen]

You have a right not to be discriminated against. You dont chose your race or sexual orientation. Why should I have to worry about what i post on social media and being fired as a result because my manager is a bigot and I was not aware of this when they hired me?

By now you have to have realized that no matter how many times you ask the wrong question it the answer remains the same?

remind what again what the correct question is?

[Scomagia]

I think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rights, honestly. San Lumen thinks employment is a right, somehow, and that you don't have to justify restricting free association for some and not for others.

You have a right not to be discriminated against. You dont chose your race or sexual orientation. Why should I have to worry about what i post on social media and being fired as a result because my manager is a bigot and I was not aware of this when they hired me?

You do not have such a right. It doesn't exist outside of the threat of violence from the state, unlike actual rights. Further, you don't even believe in such a right because you have no issue with employees discriminating. This really comes down to the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, combined with a sense of entitlement and inconsistency with regards to the right of free association.

[Pagan Trapistan]

remind what again what the correct question is?

Why the state should engage in violence against discrimination.

[Pagan Trapistan]

You do not have such a right. It doesn't exist outside of the threat of violence from the state, unlike actual rights.

There are no "actual" rights.

[Des-Bal]

remind what again what the correct question is?

Why the state should be called upon to bring it's violence to bear. I don't know why I'm telling you this because there is no possible way you won't just ask the same incorrect question and be confused about the correct question in like two minutes it's like groundhog hour.

No one is being killed, the evil that you seek to avert is just a business making a decision with criteria you don't approve of.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Why the state should be called upon to bring it's violence to bear.

To enact justice within it's territory. To prevent the decay of public order through corruption, which private criteria is.

[Des-Bal]

To enact justice within it's territory. To prevent the decay of public order.

Meaningless statements.

[San Lumen]

remind what again what the correct question is?

Why the state should be called upon to bring it's violence to bear. I don't know why I'm telling you this because there is no possible way you won't just ask the same incorrect question and be confused about the correct question in like two minutes it's like groundhog hour.

No one is being killed, the evil that you seek to avert is just a business making a decision with criteria you don't approve of.

why should any law be enforced then?

Race, religon or sexual orientation does not affect ones ability to do the job therefore it should not be a factor in terminating an employee

[Pagan Trapistan]

Meaningless statements.

The decay of public order due to private discrimination is very real. There were two regimes within the old order: empire and feudalism.

The alternative to public justice is the private whims of fiefdoms. And things are usually a lot worse off.

Pre-modern, in fact.