teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p
LOL. The guy arguing that racial employment discrimination is a good thing is talking about morality? I don't think so.
There are two possibilities. You can error on the side of more investigation which means some innocent companies will be out a few bucks, but more victims of discrimination will be able to get justice or you can error on the side of less investigation which means protecting companies, but hurting the victims of discrimination. You appear to be just arbitrarily saying that you favor the companies over the people. Why?
To satisfy my ideological agenda? You don't think that is an awfully cavalier way to talk about anti-discrimination enforcement? We're talking about people held in abject poverty by racist assholes for no reason other than malice. Kids who are pretty much screwed from the get go by these assholes. It isn't "my ideological agenda" that says that's wrong, it's just basic morality.
LOL. So you don't actually want to prevent discrimination, you just want it not to be out in the open?
What are you talking about with totalitarianism? These are individuals suing corporations... Out of those two, the corporation would be the one that has the greater potential to be totalitarian, no?
You "voting" to shift costs onto innocents so that you can advance your equal outcomes agenda is, frankly, immoral.
LOL. The guy arguing that racial employment discrimination is a good thing is talking about morality? I don't think so.
There are two possibilities. You can error on the side of more investigation which means some innocent companies will be out a few bucks, but more victims of discrimination will be able to get justice or you can error on the side of less investigation which means protecting companies, but hurting the victims of discrimination. You appear to be just arbitrarily saying that you favor the companies over the people. Why?
The freedom to discriminate is something that we all enjoy. Ask the woman who discriminates against male OB/GYNs if she like the freedom to choose her own physician. Taking away that freedom, or restricting it further, means that associations are FORCED onto people who don't want them. Why? To satisfy your ideological agenda of creating equal outcomes across society. This sounds like the reasoning behind "We need to destroy the village in order to save the village."
To satisfy my ideological agenda? You don't think that is an awfully cavalier way to talk about anti-discrimination enforcement? We're talking about people held in abject poverty by racist assholes for no reason other than malice. Kids who are pretty much screwed from the get go by these assholes. It isn't "my ideological agenda" that says that's wrong, it's just basic morality.
The system is working as it was designed to work. This is precisely what the originators of these laws set out to stop - "No Blacks Need Apply." Now you liberals are on a complete diversity destroying bombing run and intruding deeper and deeper into affairs that government has no business involving itself in. That's the creeping road to totalitarianism - throwing people into jail because they're exercising rights to free association.
LOL. So you don't actually want to prevent discrimination, you just want it not to be out in the open?
What are you talking about with totalitarianism? These are individuals suing corporations... Out of those two, the corporation would be the one that has the greater potential to be totalitarian, no?