I think it should depend on what it is. I mean if it's rape or murder, then yes. But something like jaywalking, no.
No, the government should not be able to prevent discrimination. Look at what is going on in Dayton, Ohio. The government, in its attempt at "racial equality", is hurting an entire area and those more deserving of being a police officer.
Dayton police lower standards: ‘F’ now a passing score for recruits | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I voted "other" for this reason:
The overall purpose of Civil Rights Act is "equality among the races", and as we know this country does have a history of treating one racial demographic better than all others. There's also class discrimination, gender discrimination and age discrimination, but the primary purpose of the CRA is to try and make all aspects of a civil society "fair and equal to all" with its primary focus being on discriminatory actions against minorities (Blacks).
That said, there's also the EEOC which attempts to make things fair in the workplace for all employees regardless of race, religion, sex, or age. Now, those who argue "it's a private business serving the public" forget that a civilized society can't pick and choose what members make up that society any more than they can control who walks through their doors at any given time - not unless you either post a guard or post signs listing the "conditions" under which people may not patron a place of business, i.e., "no shirt, no shoes, no service", which is far less demeaning than "No Blacks Allowed". It is this practise of "at the owner's discretion" that some still support their right to "restrict" whomever they please from patroning their establishment. In short, it's racism masked behind "freedom of choice".
To the singular issue at hand, should the government prohibit discriminatory hiring practises of a private business? The answer is "Yes" because to allow such discriminatory practises would once again usher in an era of the "have's" and "have nots". However, what the OP fails to distinguish in his question is the difference between a one-time criminal offense -vs- a historical pattern of criminal activity, let alone outline exactly what said felony offense might have been. I believe it matters.
For example: If a 25 yr old Black male applies for a job but admits to murder, unless you as a business owner conducts a background check OR just asks the individual what were the circumstances behind his conviction, he/she might not learn that such was in self-defense or perhaps it was vehicular manslaughter where no drugs or alcohol were involved, but the accident happened on a dark, wet rainy night and the guy fell asleep at the wheel. So, judging him on this one felony conviction alone doesn't paint an accurate picture of the individual's social behavior. In short, you ask questions and try not to pre-judge. I believe that's what both the Civil Rights Act and the EEOC both try to do - provide the venue for common sense, common desency and respect, fairness and impartiality. Without these human characteristics, we may as well be barbarians and revert back to the days of the Wild West where the law was whatever the bad guys generally made it out to be.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-25-11 at 11:14 AM.
and as you are an attorney, i note that you failed to make any semblance of a case to defend your position
that either speaks to the weakness of your position or your legal attributes. establish a defense of your position and let us decide which is the weaker element
Wow, I dont know how to explain to you just how wrong you are. Im hoping your a very young person who has this opinion out of naivette.
The higher the education it seems the bigger the ripoffs, instead of robbing convenience stores the educated rob large segments of society out of millions and billions.....like the Enron and Worldcom Ceos and maidoff , the list is endless, open your eyes.
Please explain why the government should have the authority to control our actions to such a degree within our own personal lives. It's not like we're impeding their rights. They don't have a right to be an applicant for the job I'm looking to hire out. Why is the government giving them that right (them being 'that gender', 'that race', 'that age', etc.). Why isn't it MY decision for MY company?
Last edited by fredmertz; 03-25-11 at 03:19 PM.
The way to rectify this situation is focus on the education of our young blacks rather than force busineses to hire those the government failed to educate. I do think New Orleans is a very good city to look at to consider the overall problem.