NATION

PASSWORD

Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Spissitude
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Dec 26, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Spissitude » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:03 pm

Shrive wrote:I agree - middle school softball creep kavanaugh tips the balance to hate too much.

I think it's unfair how politics get in the way of civil rights, but that's your country for you.

Kavanaugh is not a creep, and civil rights are political in nature.
The guy who runs this nation is the same guy who runs Hatterleigh and Entreum.
I'm really not taking this nation seriously, sort of just a silly nation to mess around with.
NS Stats? Perhaps. Fr though no.

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7775
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:04 pm

Pagan Trapistan wrote:
Ors Might wrote: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 act impartially using measurement.

In that case, we can replace justice with efficiency and have the same effect. Applying this sort of justice to employment would quickly see many laid off as automation can fit many jobs and provide the greater performance. So while it would be equal, it would not be equitable.
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
Pagan Trapistan
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Pagan Trapistan » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:13 pm

Des-Bal wrote: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.

Its my business, it acts upon the public, and not within the confines of a living room. And if it's object is to employ "friends" (i.e. establish a cabal), then it is a very serious matter indeed.

Also, trust can be estalished statistically.

User avatar
Pagan Trapistan
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Pagan Trapistan » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:15 pm

Ors Might wrote:In that case, we can replace justice with efficiency and have the same effect. Applying this sort of justice to employment would quickly see many laid off as automation can fit many jobs and provide the greater performance. So while it would be equal, it would not be equitable.

We can divide the remaining work. This isn't a problem.
There's no reason to have only one person do the same job in most cases.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:17 pm

Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here

User avatar
Pagan Trapistan
Attaché
 
Posts: 84
Founded: Jan 12, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Pagan Trapistan » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:29 pm

San Lumen wrote:Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here

The thread died because they awoke to supreme justice.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:08 pm

Ors Might wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
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?


Here is a radical idea bring suit in court alleging there is right to freedom of association and hence discrimination ought in the workplace and housing ought to be allowed

Have you been discriminated against for eye color? It’s also not a protected class

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38094
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rich Port » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:09 pm

San Lumen wrote:Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here


Basically, does the government have the right to dictate whether businesses qualify as private clubs or not and therefore "violate freedom of association".

It's empty posturing on the definition of freedom of association over the Civil Rights Act, so truly, a noble endeavor to give businesses the right to discriminate when it comes to who they'll accept in a job based on their sexual orientation.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:11 pm

The Rich Port wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here


Basically, does the government have the right to dictate whether businesses qualify as private clubs or not and therefore "violate freedom of association".

It's empty posturing on the definition of freedom of association over the Civil Rights Act, so truly, a noble endeavor to give businesses the right to discriminate when it comes to who they'll accept in a job based on their sexual orientation.

No court has nor is likely too create a freedom of association as grounds to
Discriminate

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38094
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Rich Port » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:27 pm

San Lumen wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Basically, does the government have the right to dictate whether businesses qualify as private clubs or not and therefore "violate freedom of association".

It's empty posturing on the definition of freedom of association over the Civil Rights Act, so truly, a noble endeavor to give businesses the right to discriminate when it comes to who they'll accept in a job based on their sexual orientation.

No court has nor is likely too create a freedom of association as grounds to
Discriminate


The Jaycees tried and failed, while the Boy Scouts succeeded, which is where the legal distinction of private clubs and businesses was enumerated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_v ... es_Jaycees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurley_v. ... _of_Boston

This was another case involving a private citizen.

Basically, if you provide a service or are open to the public, you cannot discriminate when hiring. The Boy Scouts are legally a private club, and they can therefore exclude membership that does not meet their criteria.

I'll give the Boy Scouts this, they did the right thing and their membership drops are mostly Christians leaving to start their own "Christian" Scout groups, so, no losses there, IMO.

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7775
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:17 am

San Lumen wrote:
Ors Might wrote: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?


Here is a radical idea bring suit in court alleging there is right to freedom of association and hence discrimination ought in the workplace and housing ought to be allowed

Have you been discriminated against for eye color? It’s also not a protected class

Hey here’s an idea that’s so not radical, everone has already thought of it: The courts can be fucking wrong. What is it with you and assuming that a court, filled with fallible humans, will always or even often come to the correct conclusion?

You still haven’t explained why it’s okay to discriminate against one and not the other.
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7775
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:19 am

The Rich Port wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here


Basically, does the government have the right to dictate whether businesses qualify as private clubs or not and therefore "violate freedom of association".

It's empty posturing on the definition of freedom of association over the Civil Rights Act, so truly, a noble endeavor to give businesses the right to discriminate when it comes to who they'll accept in a job based on their sexual orientation.

The right to choose whom you associate with will always be greater than the right to work, yes.
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32055
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:13 am

San Lumen wrote:Here is a radical idea bring suit in court alleging there is right to freedom of association and hence discrimination ought in the workplace and housing ought to be allowed

Have you been discriminated against for eye color? It’s also not a protected class


Radical idea: it's possible to disagree with the court. Wickard v. Filburn was bullshit and gave the federal government powers they were never supposed to have. Korematsu was never overturned, it's still good law but I'm sure you're okay with that.

Neither is preference or identity.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32055
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:17 am

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Its my business, it acts upon the public, and not within the confines of a living room. And if it's object is to employ "friends" (i.e. establish a cabal), then it is a very serious matter indeed.

Also, trust can be estalished statistically.


If you run a store and you want the one employee you have who will be around you constantly 8 hours a day five days a week for the forseeable future to be someone you don't mind hanging out with that is not a cabal. You're concern isn't justice it's creepy anti-capitalist bullshit.

And yet it's not. We do not require people's assessment of trust to depend upon statistics and whether someone ultimately does feel trust is not something you can legislate.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:24 am

Ors Might wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Here is a radical idea bring suit in court alleging there is right to freedom of association and hence discrimination ought in the workplace and housing ought to be allowed

Have you been discriminated against for eye color? It’s also not a protected class

Hey here’s an idea that’s so not radical, everone has already thought of it: The courts can be fucking wrong. What is it with you and assuming that a court, filled with fallible humans, will always or even often come to the correct conclusion?

You still haven’t explained why it’s okay to discriminate against one and not the other.

I didnt say the courts cannot be wrong but they have not ruled that business has the right of freedom of association as that would mean the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Why dont you file a case alleging business have that right?
Ors Might wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Basically, does the government have the right to dictate whether businesses qualify as private clubs or not and therefore "violate freedom of association".

It's empty posturing on the definition of freedom of association over the Civil Rights Act, so truly, a noble endeavor to give businesses the right to discriminate when it comes to who they'll accept in a job based on their sexual orientation.

The right to choose whom you associate with will always be greater than the right to work, yes.


Therefore it ought to be perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone if they find out they are gay or for a landlord to evict someone for the same reason?

Would it also be ok for a company to post in a job application any not of the caucasian race need not apply?

User avatar
Woodfiredpizzas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Jan 15, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Woodfiredpizzas » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:49 am

Anti discrimination laws were an over adjustment at best.

People are free to choose who to associate with irregardless of what any government says.
Reheated donuts

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7775
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:30 am

San Lumen wrote:
Ors Might wrote:Hey here’s an idea that’s so not radical, everone has already thought of it: The courts can be fucking wrong. What is it with you and assuming that a court, filled with fallible humans, will always or even often come to the correct conclusion?

You still haven’t explained why it’s okay to discriminate against one and not the other.

I didnt say the courts cannot be wrong but they have not ruled that business has the right of freedom of association as that would mean the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Why dont you file a case alleging business have that right?
Ors Might wrote:The right to choose whom you associate with will always be greater than the right to work, yes.


Therefore it ought to be perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone if they find out they are gay or for a landlord to evict someone for the same reason?

Would it also be ok for a company to post in a job application any not of the caucasian race need not apply?

One has the right to assemble and to not assemble. Unless you’re going to argue that the government has the right to force you to associate with just about anyone they choose, you believe in some kind of freedom of association.

Yes. Depends on if that’s allowed in their contract. Housing is different than employment as it could fall under an essential service. Then again, I am under the belief that one of the legitimate roles of government could be to provide essential goods and services, so.

Yeah. You realize that they do that all the time, right? Normally for acting jobs. I don’t personally see Tony Maguire managing to pull off the Black Panther. Do you?
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:40 am

Ors Might wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I didnt say the courts cannot be wrong but they have not ruled that business has the right of freedom of association as that would mean the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Why dont you file a case alleging business have that right?

Therefore it ought to be perfectly legal for an employer to fire someone if they find out they are gay or for a landlord to evict someone for the same reason?

Would it also be ok for a company to post in a job application any not of the caucasian race need not apply?

One has the right to assemble and to not assemble. Unless you’re going to argue that the government has the right to force you to associate with just about anyone they choose, you believe in some kind of freedom of association.

Yes. Depends on if that’s allowed in their contract. Housing is different than employment as it could fall under an essential service. Then again, I am under the belief that one of the legitimate roles of government could be to provide essential goods and services, so.

Yeah. You realize that they do that all the time, right? Normally for acting jobs. I don’t personally see Tony Maguire managing to pull off the Black Panther. Do you?

The Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed then?

Why would something like that be in the contract? Why should a landlord be forced to rent to people they dont want too?

In the acting business they have the freedom to chose who they want for the part but that does not mean they can say only x type of person can audition.

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7775
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:45 am

San Lumen wrote:
Ors Might wrote:One has the right to assemble and to not assemble. Unless you’re going to argue that the government has the right to force you to associate with just about anyone they choose, you believe in some kind of freedom of association.

Yes. Depends on if that’s allowed in their contract. Housing is different than employment as it could fall under an essential service. Then again, I am under the belief that one of the legitimate roles of government could be to provide essential goods and services, so.

Yeah. You realize that they do that all the time, right? Normally for acting jobs. I don’t personally see Tony Maguire managing to pull off the Black Panther. Do you?

The Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed then?

Why would something like that be in the contract? Why should a landlord be forced to rent to people they dont want too?

In the acting business they have the freedom to chose who they want for the part but that does not mean they can say only x type of person can audition.

I think the Civil Rights Act should have only applied to life essential goods and services.

Because it’d give them grounds for terminating the contract. But I don’t think private landowners should be forced to accept anyone. I also think the government should provide housing and other essential things.

You can’t say that a white woman or an asian woman can’t audition for Dr. Martin Luther King in a historical film?
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
Estanglia
Senator
 
Posts: 3858
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Estanglia » Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:07 am

San Lumen wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
In for a penny in for a pound, that's how shitty law gets made.


Companies aren't the law, meaning discrimination by a private company isn't them being treated unequally under the law.

It's not about what the state should allow it's about where they should compel people to act wit their demands backed by violence.


Last time I checked the government doesnt threaten discrimination with violence


Effectively it does. The state needs a mechanism to ensure that people obey laws and are punished if they don't. What is this mechanism other than the threat of violence?

San Lumen wrote:
Scomagia wrote:This is circular logic.
"The reason some people's rights to free association can be restricted and others can't be is because the latter has rights to free association."

Also, I object to your use of immorality as a justification for State intervention. If immorality is the acceptable basis for intervention, then you should have no problem with the idea of The State criminalizing homosexuality, so long as they consider it immoral. See the problem?

being gay is not a choice.

That is irrelevant to Scomagia's point.

San Lumen wrote:
Uiiop wrote:If you don't mind i would like to do my own research on this before attacking this assertion.
However only San seems to be the one saying these types of things and he isn't what you call an accurate measurement of anyone's opinion other than his own.

What types of things? If you want to quit because your manager is black thats your right but your employer cannot refuse to hire you because of your race and you should not be able to fire someone because of their sexual orientation.

Why? Why should the employer be unable to fire people for being gay but the employee is able to quit if the boss is gay?

San Lumen wrote:
Des-Bal wrote: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?


Because there is a public good yo the enforcement of that law. You need to show why there is a public benefit to this law that outweighs the restriction upon employers.

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

How is that relevant to Des-Bal's point?

San Lumen wrote:
Ors Might wrote: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.

Why only those three categories? Is it not wrong if I fire based on eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Smell? Weight? Political beliefs?
Yeah: Egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Labour, the EU
Nah: pointless discrimination, authoritarianism, Brexit, Trump, both American parties, the Conservatives
I flop between "optimistic about the future" and "pessimistic about the future" every time I go on NSG.

(Taken 29/08/2020)
Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

8values thinks I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:24 pm

Estanglia wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Last time I checked the government doesnt threaten discrimination with violence


Effectively it does. The state needs a mechanism to ensure that people obey laws and are punished if they don't. What is this mechanism other than the threat of violence?

San Lumen wrote:being gay is not a choice.

That is irrelevant to Scomagia's point.

San Lumen wrote:What types of things? If you want to quit because your manager is black thats your right but your employer cannot refuse to hire you because of your race and you should not be able to fire someone because of their sexual orientation.

Why? Why should the employer be unable to fire people for being gay but the employee is able to quit if the boss is gay?

San Lumen wrote:
why should any law be enforced then?


Because there is a public good yo the enforcement of that law. You need to show why there is a public benefit to this law that outweighs the restriction upon employers.

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

How is that relevant to Des-Bal's point?

San Lumen wrote:
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.

Why only those three categories? Is it not wrong if I fire based on eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Smell? Weight? Political beliefs?


Because discrimination is wrong and violates civil rights and equality under the law.

I believe weight and political beliefs are protected categories as well.

What if a store is the only one in town? too bad go to the next one which could be miles away?
Last edited by San Lumen on Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34903
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Telconi » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:27 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Estanglia wrote:
Effectively it does. The state needs a mechanism to ensure that people obey laws and are punished if they don't. What is this mechanism other than the threat of violence?


That is irrelevant to Scomagia's point.


Why? Why should the employer be unable to fire people for being gay but the employee is able to quit if the boss is gay?



Because there is a public good yo the enforcement of that law. You need to show why there is a public benefit to this law that outweighs the restriction upon employers.


How is that relevant to Des-Bal's point?


Why only those three categories? Is it not wrong if I fire based on eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Smell? Weight? Political beliefs?


Because discrimination is wrong and violates civil rights and equality under the law.

I believe weight and political beliefs are protected categories as well.


Thankfully political belief is not.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 40508
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:32 pm

Ors Might wrote:
San Lumen wrote:The Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed then?

Why would something like that be in the contract? Why should a landlord be forced to rent to people they dont want too?

In the acting business they have the freedom to chose who they want for the part but that does not mean they can say only x type of person can audition.

I think the Civil Rights Act should have only applied to life essential goods and services.

Because it’d give them grounds for terminating the contract. But I don’t think private landowners should be forced to accept anyone. I also think the government should provide housing and other essential things.

You can’t say that a white woman or an asian woman can’t audition for Dr. Martin Luther King in a historical film?

What do you consider life essential goods and services? For instance, do you consider gasoline for a gar to be an essential good? How about having a doctor, access to medicine, the ability to buy food at a grocery store. Does it make a difference if this is in a big city versus a tiny rural town?
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 81228
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby San Lumen » Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:38 pm

Ors Might wrote:
San Lumen wrote:The Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed then?

Why would something like that be in the contract? Why should a landlord be forced to rent to people they dont want too?

In the acting business they have the freedom to chose who they want for the part but that does not mean they can say only x type of person can audition.

I think the Civil Rights Act should have only applied to life essential goods and services.

Because it’d give them grounds for terminating the contract. But I don’t think private landowners should be forced to accept anyone. I also think the government should provide housing and other essential things.

You can’t say that a white woman or an asian woman can’t audition for Dr. Martin Luther King in a historical film?

What is essential goods and services?

Id be all for government housing as it would mean lower rents but why should a landlord have the right to evict you for who you are?

In theory no but I doubt they would.

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7775
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:25 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Ors Might wrote:I think the Civil Rights Act should have only applied to life essential goods and services.

Because it’d give them grounds for terminating the contract. But I don’t think private landowners should be forced to accept anyone. I also think the government should provide housing and other essential things.

You can’t say that a white woman or an asian woman can’t audition for Dr. Martin Luther King in a historical film?

What do you consider life essential goods and services? For instance, do you consider gasoline for a gar to be an essential good? How about having a doctor, access to medicine, the ability to buy food at a grocery store. Does it make a difference if this is in a big city versus a tiny rural town?

You raise a valid point about gasoline. My answer to that is that I lean towards a solid maybe? Yeah, I know that’s a lame answer but I’m genuinely unsure if it should be classified as life essential. One certainly could live without in but in the times we live in, lacking the ability to get gas could snowball into you not being able to do anything. But that also depends on where you live, too. I’m not one hundred percent committed to this definition and open to having my mind changed but I’d define “life essential” as a requirement in order to live day to day without much issue. Things like groceries, medicine, doctor visits, and housing are things I’d put under that category. I would also mention that I think most if those should be covered by the government anyway.

San Lumen wrote:
Ors Might wrote:I think the Civil Rights Act should have only applied to life essential goods and services.

Because it’d give them grounds for terminating the contract. But I don’t think private landowners should be forced to accept anyone. I also think the government should provide housing and other essential things.

You can’t say that a white woman or an asian woman can’t audition for Dr. Martin Luther King in a historical film?

What is essential goods and services?

Id be all for government housing as it would mean lower rents but why should a landlord have the right to evict you for who you are?

In theory no but I doubt they would.

I answer this up above in this post.

If they own that land, then it’s their property, no? Or am i misunderstanding how ownership works in this case? Seems similar to renting out a place.

Why not? A white woman can’t play MLK in a serious historical film about him, it’d be ridiculous.
Last edited by Ors Might on Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Bawkie, Duvniask, Fartsniffage, Picairn, Upper Magica, Zhinmja

Advertisement

Remove ads