Kernel Sanders

We've had that system before and it does not work. Discrimination was rampant before laws were passed to protect minorities, and still is to a certain degree. Laws exist to protect the public, and in this case anti discrimination laws are necessary to protect minorities.

I am a strong advocate of individual rights, but in this particular case the American people have shown that they cannot be trusted to exercise those rights without harming groups of people for reasons that are beyond those people's control, and for reasons have no foundation other than irrational hate. In a perfect world these laws would not be necessary, but in real-world America they are.

Anti-discrimination laws do not force anybody to hire anybody else (except for affirmative action which I am strongly opposed to). All they do is prevent people from refusing employment based on race, sex, religion, or other such immaterial issues that only arise through prejudice and hate.

rivrrat

They are not necessary any longer. Not by a long shot. There are far too many businesses out there and public sentiment is far too strong in favor of minorities. All people have to do is say something on the internet about a company discriminating and all will be taken care of. They'll either stop, or lose business. That is as it should be.

Would discrimination happen if the laws were removed? Of course. As much as it does now. Only without the laws, the market will determine the success or failure of such a business.

LOL Preventing them from refusing to hire is the same as forcing them to hire.

People have the right to hate, IMO. People have the right to hire who they want and/or provide services to who they want. The government does not have the right, IMO, to force them to do either against their will.

__________________

Kernel Sanders

Many businesses get accused of discrimination and I don't think I've ever heard of one going out of business for it. You will occasionally see a boycott, but they never really get off the ground. Discrimination is too tangentially connected to commercial performance for market forces to take care of it.

Besides, what harm does it do to have laws on the books preventing discrimination? They do a lot of good, but I fail to see how they do harm enough to justify repealing them

Not at all. You can refuse to hire them because there are more qualified applicants, or because they do not promote a positive atmosphere, or for a billion other reasons. If there are five white applicants and one black applicant you are not obligated to hire the black applicant (except in the case of affirmative action, which I have said I oppose), you simply are not allowed to exclude the black applicant because he or she is black. Where's the harm in that?

You can hate all you want, you just can't use your business as a way to harm others based on that hate.

Ikari

Why don't you use your consumerism to change business practice instead of relying on government force to suppress the rights and liberties of the people?

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

rivrrat

Really? I've not heard of any that consistently discriminates against any particular minority.

I have, on occasion, heard of *an occurance* which is generally suspect at best.

How so?

I fail to see what good they do that cannot be done without them.

Oh I see. You just lie. So the law actually does nothing at all.

Not hiring someone is harming them? Since when? Plenty of other businesses out there, they can find one that actually WANTS them.

Kernel Sanders

I don't know where you live, but around me there is a restaurant chain called the Cracker Barrel. They are constantly under fire for discrimination against both the LGBT group and blacks. They are still in business

The vast majority of consumers in today's world are either unaware of a company's views or just don't care, me included. I know that the Cracker Barrel discriminates. I've still eaten there - the burgers taste good and that's what I'm looking for in a restaurant. How many people don't wear Nike's because of the sweatshop allegations? How many people (PETA aside - they barely count as people) don't eat at KFC because of their treatment of the chickens? If I'm looking for a shoe or a meal I make my choice based on the quality of that shoe or the taste of that meal, I could care less what the company's political views or practices are.


We tried that, it didn't work. If you're denying that the Civil Rights movement accomplished anything then I guess there's nothing left to discuss. It's objective reality that minorities have more rights and more opportunities than a hundred years ago.


Wow - why not try to refute a point rather than just pointing and screaming LIAR!!! I was kinda enjoying this discussion up to now.

Discrimination laws are not perfect. There are and always will be ways to get around the system by such a simple means as not sharing your racist views. Extrapolating that to saying that the laws do nothing is ludicrous. How many universities still deny blanket acceptance to women and blacks? How many businesses post want ads with the caveat no Muslims need apply? Anti-discrimination laws have not not created perfect equality in America and never will unless taken to ridiculous, oppressive extremes. But making homicide a crime doesn't eradicate murder either.

If it is one isolated case of discrimination then the laws are indeed unnecessary, but the world doesn't exist in a vacuum. In 1950's Alabama, how many schools accepted blacks compared to the population? What should they do, go apply for a job up the street at the other business that refuses to hire blacks? How about the restaurant across town that won't even serve them? Discrimination is a real problem that really harms people. Thankfully it is much less of an issue than fifty or a hundred years ago, due largely to the Civil Rights movement and the victories it has achieved, which includes anti discrimination laws.

Ikari

So you believe then that your laziness is justification for the expansion of government against the innate and inalienable rights of the individual? Interesting.

Kernel Sanders

I believe that reality trumps philosophizing about how nice it would be if everybody based every action on a careful analysis of their actions and the effects, both direct and indirect through supporting a company with a particular viewpoint. I believe that no matter how much you want it to, market forces will never take care of discrimination at an acceptable level, and that anti-discrimination laws are both necessary and beneficial

Tell me, how many businesses do you boycott for their political views or their discriminatory actions?

rivrrat

Have they been convicted of any crime? Are the allegations plausible? I've heard nothing at all about it, and I have no idea what LGBT is.

So no one actually cares, but yet you want to keep a law on the books that forces the hand of employers and yet no one cares about it? What's the point, if no one cares?

I do believe I stated that the laws are not needed any longer. The past is just that.. the PAST. We are dealing with today.

WTF? I didn't call anyone I liar. I simply stated that all a sexist/racist/whatever employer has to do is LIE about the reasons for not hiring someone. So what, again, does the law DO exactly? No one apparently gives a crap, and it's wtf easy to avoid obeying said law without any repercussions. At least if the law is removed, such practices will be done out in the open and thus dealt with by the market.

I dunno, how many?

How so? TODAY. Not in the past, but TODAY.

Tucker Case

According to this logic, a police officer could refuse to help someone because they are black.. or mexican.. or white... or straight... or ______.



No one is forcing her to remain as a doctor. People can CHOOSE their preoffesion. That makes this a CHOICE.

Meaning, Doctors form this point forward should be held up to this standard. They can choose whether or not to get into the profession knowing all of the facts. They cannot refuse treatment to anyone.

No body is forced into anything. It will be their job to do, and they agree to do it based on their DECISION to get into that field. If their beliefs are so strong, they should not make that choice. But the choice remains theirs in this case.

Those who were in the profession before hand should be allowed to refer the patient elsewhere (even if it is outside of their practice) without penalty. They SHOULD be told that they must advertise the fact that they refuse service based on these types of things as a disclosure to potential patients.

If the new docs choose to go down the same path regardless of the fact that the law exists, **** 'em.