I want bigots out in the open...for all to see.
I want the local community knowing that a racist club owner fired a guy because he was 'black'...so that community can economically boycott that club.
If you force him to keep 'blacks' (when he secretly hates them) all you do is force that racism underground...where it often times festers and grows.
But all that is secondary.
These businesses are private. If a pathetic racist pig wants to only hire one 'race' - that should be completely up to him.
And NO WHERE (to my knowledge) in the Constitution does it say otherwise.
Freedom of choice. Freedom of expression.
You clearly only like freedom of expression when it pleases you.
If it doesn't - you are fine with tossing those rights out the window.
I am not.
Freedom is an absolute...and I am not prepared to sacrifice it just because I find many of these expressions disgusting (like only hiring based on race or sex).
Show me exactly where it says in the Constitution that the state has the right to tell private business owners who they can and cannot employ (outside of criminals)?
If you cannot - then your argument means NOTHING to me.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
Any form of Jim Crow is merely Socialism bailing out alleged Capitalists.
Never did I say such a thing. Great strawman.People like you want a law that forces people to employ people they don't want
Who said the employee doesn't like the job? I just said they shouldn't have to be put into a situation where they have to choose between dignity and their family.so that these employee's can do jobs they don't like
Once more, it appears as if you don't take the time to actually read what is said.
Benefiting from PUBLIC taxes, as I've already noted.Private companies are PRIVATE.
The government isn't telling them they HAVE to employ people...only that you treat them fairly if you do.The government has no business telling them who they can employ.
Enough to deliberately misinterpret what I've said multiples times and post in response to the blatant misinterpretation you conceived?You don't agree...guess how much I care?
We can be done the moment you quit replying. It won't change the fact you've been wrong multiples times about my position, nor does it change the fact you seem to think it should be legally okay to treat women as sexual objects.We are done on this.
So...if the employee doesn't agree to be terminated....I have been very clear that the employer has absolutely no right to anything the employee has, including his/her labor, other than what is agreed between the employer and employee. What part of 'agreed' do you not understand? How can I put the term 'agreement' into words small enough to understand that it implies voluntary consent?
I'm sorry, you gave yourself away.
No one is forcing the employer to pay an employee anything. All I'm saying is the employer shouldn't have the right to treat employees unfairly. That doesn't mean the employee should be able to never come to work, be a terrible employee and still get paid. It just means the employer shouldn't be able to fire someone because the employee refuses to do something illegal or reprehensible.Nor does the employee have any right of any kind to what the employer has lawfully
Nonsense, because laws protecting the employee do not constitute involuntary servitude. No one is forcing the employer to hire an employee. An employer hires someone with the understanding certain laws protects the rights of the employee.And the employer can fire an employee any time that he/she wants. Any other policy is involuntary servitude.
You are wrong in just about every way, even within the context of your own arguments.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776