Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[San Lumen]

Says who? This right is not recognized as one. In your view is the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional?

If someone makes a hotel reservation that they paid for why should the hotel have the right to turn them away at the door for being gay or black or asian?

Says me. Says justice. In my view, the right to choose whether or not to associate is greater than the right to have a job.

Now this is a tricky situation. I would say essential goods and services should be required to be provided to anyone, regardless of race, sex, etc. But that’s vastly different than hiring someone and I only take that position because someone dying is of greater consequence than someone having to interact with someone else for a few minutes.

Well courts dont agree. Why don;'t you bring it to court and see what a judge has to say alleging freedom of association

I don't see how that is different. Isnt that forcing them to serve people they dont like?

An employer does not have a right to pry into your personal life nor fire you over it in most circumstances. What happens in my bedroom is none of their business

[Ors Might]

Says me. Says justice. In my view, the right to choose whether or not to associate is greater than the right to have a job.

Now this is a tricky situation. I would say essential goods and services should be required to be provided to anyone, regardless of race, sex, etc. But that’s vastly different than hiring someone and I only take that position because someone dying is of greater consequence than someone having to interact with someone else for a few minutes.

Well courts dont agree. Why don;'t you bring it to court and see what a judge has to say alleging freedom of association

I don't see how that is different. Isnt that forcing them to serve people they dont like?

An employer does not have a right to pry into your personal life nor fire you over it in most circumstances. What happens in my bedroom is none of their business

Then the courts are enemies of freedom and justice. Simple as that.

The difference here is simple. The role of the ideal state is restrict rights just enough that they don’t come into conflict into each other too often, which is inevitable when you have so many individuals with so many interests. In the case of essential goods and services, what we have here is a conflict between the right to freedom of association and the right to live. In this instance, I declared life to be of greater value than the freedom not to provide an essential good or service. But something like a wedding cake wouldn’t make the cut, see?

Sure. But you don’t have the right to remain under their employ.

[The Rich Port]

I don't know who you're trying to fool, but corporations and employers are just as capable of being instruments of tyranny and oppression, specifically by denying minority groups and really anybody they don't like (such as people of opposing political viewpoints) the chance to contribute to the economy. Nobody with half a brain is going to trust private enterprises to look out for the benefit of the people.

It isn't in the government's best interest to encourage discrimination that isn't based on merit, and that's unlikely to happen, and you encouraging it is irresponsible and ignorant of the past.

[Ors Might]

I don't know who you're trying to fool, but corporations and employers are just as capable of being instruments of tyranny and oppression, specifically by denying minority groups and really anybody they don't like (such as people of opposing political viewpoints) the chance to contribute to the economy. Nobody with half a brain is going to trust private enterprises to look out for the benefit of the people.

It isn't in the government's best interest to encourage discrimination that isn't based on merit, and that's unlikely to happen, and you encouraging it is irresponsible and ignorant of the past.

Here’s the thing, I entirely understand what you mean. I’m one of those minorities that could very well end up being discriminated against.

But right is right and wrong is wrong. I wouldn’t ask for an exemption from morality for myself so I damn well wouldn’t ask for an exemption on behalf of anyone else. Individuals have a right to discriminate and I don’t see why that right should cease to exist when one starts a business.

[San Lumen]

Well courts dont agree. Why don;'t you bring it to court and see what a judge has to say alleging freedom of association

I don't see how that is different. Isnt that forcing them to serve people they dont like?

An employer does not have a right to pry into your personal life nor fire you over it in most circumstances. What happens in my bedroom is none of their business

Then the courts are enemies of freedom and justice. Simple as that.

The difference here is simple. The role of the ideal state is restrict rights just enough that they don’t come into conflict into each other too often, which is inevitable when you have so many individuals with so many interests. In the case of essential goods and services, what we have here is a conflict between the right to freedom of association and the right to live. In this instance, I declared life to be of greater value than the freedom not to provide an essential good or service. But something like a wedding cake wouldn’t make the cut, see?

Sure. But you don’t have the right to remain under their employ.

How are they enemies of freedom and justice? Why dont you bring suit in court to allege that a supposed right of freedom of association exists?

If you are open to the public you do not get to pick and choose who you serve.

Yes employers have a right to terminate but it should not be because of your race, religion or sexual orientation. I dont see why that ought to be a right after they hire you or choose not to hire you.

[Ors Might]

Then the courts are enemies of freedom and justice. Simple as that.

The difference here is simple. The role of the ideal state is restrict rights just enough that they don’t come into conflict into each other too often, which is inevitable when you have so many individuals with so many interests. In the case of essential goods and services, what we have here is a conflict between the right to freedom of association and the right to live. In this instance, I declared life to be of greater value than the freedom not to provide an essential good or service. But something like a wedding cake wouldn’t make the cut, see?

Sure. But you don’t have the right to remain under their employ.

How are they enemies of freedom and justice? Why dont you bring suit in court to allege that a supposed right of freedom of association exists?

If you are open to the public you do not get to pick and choose who you serve.

Yes employers have a right to terminate but it should not be because of your race, religion or sexual orientation. I dont see why that ought to be a right after they hire you or choose not to hire you.

If they oppose freedom and justice, then they’re enemies of freedom and justice. We’ve been over this.

Only because it’s law, which is backed by force. Not because of any moral argument or train of thought.

Why is it okay for an employer to discriminate against me because of my eye color but not because of my sexuality?

[Pagan Trapistan]

If they oppose freedom and justice, then they’re enemies of freedom and justice. We’ve been over this.

Justice,
synonyms: fairness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, nonpartisanship;

Justice is to employ without bias or partisanship. Impartially. On an objective basis. The basis usually considered objective is merit.

To associate other than on an objective basis is NOT justice but partiality. And an antonoym for partiality is injustice.

Another definition of injustuce is lawlesness. I.e. to hire and fire not on the basis of a protocol.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/justice

[Pagan Trapistan]

http://www.nmb.uscourts.gov/values/justice
Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” Indeed, this duty is listed first at the beginning of our constitution.

What is meant by the words “fair, impartial, justice?” Their meaning becomes clear when the judiciary resolves disputes free from improper outside influence, self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism while applying the rule of law to the facts of cases, treating or affecting all equally with effective due process. To do this, the judiciary must uphold the highest level of integrity in all its actions.

[The Rich Port]

I don't know who you're trying to fool, but corporations and employers are just as capable of being instruments of tyranny and oppression, specifically by denying minority groups and really anybody they don't like (such as people of opposing political viewpoints) the chance to contribute to the economy. Nobody with half a brain is going to trust private enterprises to look out for the benefit of the people.

It isn't in the government's best interest to encourage discrimination that isn't based on merit, and that's unlikely to happen, and you encouraging it is irresponsible and ignorant of the past.

Here’s the thing, I entirely understand what you mean. I’m one of those minorities that could very well end up being discriminated against.

But right is right and wrong is wrong. I wouldn’t ask for an exemption from morality for myself so I damn well wouldn’t ask for an exemption on behalf of anyone else. Individuals have a right to discriminate and I don’t see why that right should cease to exist when one starts a business.

And what is right is for the government to allow corporations to overcome the democratic system and impose their own tyranny on citizens, discriminating at will?

[Ors Might]

If they oppose freedom and justice, then they’re enemies of freedom and justice. We’ve been over this.

Justice,
synonyms: fairness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, nonpartisanship;

Justice is to employ without bias or partisanship. Impartially. On an objective basis. The basis usually considered objective is merit.

To associate other than on an objective basis is NOT justice but partiality. And an antonoym for partiality is injustice.

Another definition of injustuce is lawlesness. I.e. to hire and fire on on the basis of a protocol.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/justice

Indeed, so you understand how the state removing rights in such a manner is the definition of injustice? Individuals are entitled to choose whom they associate with, no matter the reason. It is inherently unjust to force association.

If we separate ALL business owners from the general public, we are claiming that the right to freedom of association isn’t based on any merit but rather the nature of your occuptation. You would have the state engage in injustice in order to prevent the injustice of citizens, which does have some basis. After all, we do typicallg agree that imprisonment is generally a negative infringement and yet allow it in some cases. However, this is typically only to prevent much greater infringements. That is the basis of justice and what we use as a merit. You haven’t demonstrated how one has a right to employment that justifies infringing upon the right of association.

[Des-Bal]

And what is right is for the government to allow corporations to overcome the democratic system and impose their own tyranny on citizens, discriminating at will?

The same tyranny perpetrated when someone decides not to be your friend.

[Ors Might]

Here’s the thing, I entirely understand what you mean. I’m one of those minorities that could very well end up being discriminated against.

But right is right and wrong is wrong. I wouldn’t ask for an exemption from morality for myself so I damn well wouldn’t ask for an exemption on behalf of anyone else. Individuals have a right to discriminate and I don’t see why that right should cease to exist when one starts a business.

And what is right is for the government to allow corporations to overcome the democratic system and impose their own tyranny on citizens, discriminating at will?

Funny how you only bring up corporations, as if that’s the only thing anti-discrimination laws effect. But yes, it is right for individuals to choose whom they’ll associate with and it’s wrong to force them to do business with each other. Whether they’re a corporation or a mom and pop shop.

[The Rich Port]

And what is right is for the government to allow corporations to overcome the democratic system and impose their own tyranny on citizens, discriminating at will?

Funny how you only bring up corporations, as if that’s the only thing anti-discrimination laws effect. But yes, it is right for individuals to choose whom they’ll associate with and it’s wrong to force them to do business with each other. Whether they’re a corporation or a mom and pop shop.

Businesses have a vested political power that things like, I don't know, private clubs don't.

Why should the government sacrifice itself for the sake of private special interests and enterprises that could potentially overshadow it? Indeed... Why would people who would stand to lose representation want that?

And what is right is for the government to allow corporations to overcome the democratic system and impose their own tyranny on citizens, discriminating at will?

The same tyranny perpetrated when someone decides not to be your friend.

Yeah, not at all. That's why the distinction between businesses and private clubs exist. They're not there because the government wants everybody to be friends.

Also, hate to tell you, but not all of your co-workers like you, but they still work with you regardless of who you are because that's what professional relationships are.

I mean, IF you're a professional. I guess if you're not, you'd let silly things like race and religion and politics dictate who you are and aren't coworkers or friends with.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, not at all. That's why the distinction between businesses and private clubs exist. They're not there because the government wants everybody to be friends.

"Private club" is a meaningless distinction and it's existence suggests that we concede no great evil is committed when a business discriminates. We accept that private citizens can discriminate in their treatment of others and we even accept it when it relates to business.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Idividuals are entitled to choose whom they associate with, no matter the reason. It is inherently unjust to force association.

Corporations and employers are legal entitites.

If we separate ALL business owners from the general public, we are claiming that the right to freedom of association isn’t based on any merit but rather the nature of your occuptation.

Occupational rights are indeed defined by law. An employee also cannot associate freely. It is assumed he has to do his job.

You haven’t demonstrated how one has a right to employment that justifies infringing upon the right of association.

Employers have to hire impartially in accordance with justice because it is part of the meaning of the term, and they are subjects of justice.

[Pagan Trapistan]

We accept that private citizens can discriminate in their treatment of others and we even accept it when it relates to business.

You do. We and the state do not.

[The Rich Port]

Yeah, not at all. That's why the distinction between businesses and private clubs exist. They're not there because the government wants everybody to be friends.

"Private club" is a meaningless distinction and it's existence suggests that we concede no great evil is committed when a business discriminates. We accept that private citizens can discriminate in their treatment of others and we even accept it when it relates to business.

No, it just means YOU and Ors accept it, and the government is fine with that.

[The Rich Port]

Also... You guys are OK with private citizens and corporations being discriminatory... But not governments?

[Des-Bal]

Also... You guys are OK with private citizens and corporations being discriminatory... But not governments?

Do you think it should be illegal to stop being someones friend because of their religion?

[Ors Might]

Also... You guys are OK with private citizens and corporations being discriminatory... But not governments?

The government’s ideal role is facilitating the safe expression of rights whilst preventing as much conflict between those rights as often as is reasonably expected. The government can’t do that by discriminating on irrelevant grounds

Idividuals are entitled to choose whom they associate with, no matter the reason. It is inherently unjust to force association.

Corporations and employers are legal entitites.

If we separate ALL business owners from the general public, we are claiming that the right to freedom of association isn’t based on any merit but rather the nature of your occuptation.

Occupational rights are indeed defined by law. An employee also cannot associate freely. It is assumed he has to do his job.

You haven’t demonstrated how one has a right to employment that justifies infringing upon the right of association.

Employers have to hire impartially in accordance with justice because it is part of the meaning of the term, and they are subjects of justice.

I think we ultimately have different conceptions of justice and how it ought to relate to freedom, government, and individuals. But I do respect your view of it even if I ultimately disagree. My view boils down to the assertion that if you denounce an act and yet make exceptions for it elsewhere, you aren’t truly objecting to the act itself. Rather, you’re objecting to a component of it that underlies your true principles. Thus justice in my view comes from understanding and consistently and actively upholding your principles. I realize that this results in a far more subjective and individualist conception of justice but it’s the only one that I’ve found a convincing argument for.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Do you think it should be illegal to stop being someones friend because of their religion?

No, the object in that instance is whether he is your friend. The just object of employment is whether they would most meritoriously fit the work.

I.e. the just (impartial) bject of employment is what best matches said employment. Take the object itself and measure the subject against it.

The just (impartial) object of employment is not whether they are your friend or any other partial criteria.

[Pagan Trapistan]

My view boils down to the assertion that if you denounce an act and yet make exceptions for it elsewhere, you aren’t truly objecting to the act itself.

I agree, justice should be extended.

I realize that this results in a far more subjective and individualist conception of justice but it’s the only one that I’ve found a convincing argument for.

That is literally not justice according to the definition. Justice is intended to be neither subjective nor individual.

[Ors Might]

My view boils down to the assertion that if you denounce an act and yet make exceptions for it elsewhere, you aren’t truly objecting to the act itself.

I agree, justice should be extended.

I realize that this results in a far more subjective and individualist conception of justice but it’s the only one that I’ve found a convincing argument for.

That is literally not justice according to the definition. Justice is intended to be neither subjective nor individual.

Justice in the real world has no choice but to be subjective and individualistic, as justice requires agreement upon basic principles to be enforced. We would have to prove that a set of values are objective in order for justice itself to be objective. Now, you can pursue justice objectively according to a set of values and merits but those values and merits aren’t themselves objective.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Justice in the real world has no choice but to be subjective and individualistic, as justice requires agreement upon basic principles to be enforced. We would have to prove that a set of values are objective in order for justice itself to be objective.

No. The subject which can best fit the job is one that can best perform it. Only measurement is needed.

If you do it according to other criteria you are no longer trying to engage in the stated object. To fulfill the object impartially is justice, because its in the definition.

Justice means impartiality, and it is indeed possible to act impartially using measurement.

[Des-Bal]

No. The subject which can best fit the job is one that can best perform it. Only measurement is needed.

If you do it according to other criteria you are no longer trying to engage in the stated object. To fulfill the object impartially is justice, because its in the definition.

Justice means impartiality, and it is indeed possible act impartially using measurement.

Unless of course your object is "I'd rather work with someone I can be friends with." Or "I would rather work with someone I can trust." You don't get to decide the object. It's not your business and therefore it's not your business.