Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Spissitude]

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.

[Ors Might]

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.

[Pagan Trapistan]

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.

[Pagan Trapistan]

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.

[San Lumen]

Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here

[Pagan Trapistan]

Im completely lost as to what the current topic is here

The thread died because they awoke to supreme justice.

[San Lumen]

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

[The Rich Port]

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.

[San Lumen]

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

[The Rich Port]

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.

[Ors Might]

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.

[Ors Might]

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.

[Des-Bal]

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.

[Des-Bal]

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.

[San Lumen]

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?

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?

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Anti discrimination laws were an over adjustment at best.

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

[Ors Might]

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?

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?

[San Lumen]

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.

[Ors Might]

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?

[Estanglia]

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

[San Lumen]

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?

being gay is not a choice.

That is irrelevant to Scomagia's point.

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?

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?

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?

[Telconi]

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.

[Neutraligon]

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?

[San Lumen]

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.

[Ors Might]

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.

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.