Do you support affirmative action?

[TheGoverness]

while we are certainly not there today, we are moving in the right direction

not that long ago, to see multi-racial children was a rare incident. not today

We've come a long way.

 

[justabubba]

Even so, seems to me that there is still within the business' rights to decline from engaging in doing business with some.

which is why the business needs to become a private association, so that only cardholders can shop there

Cannot a bartender refuse to serve someone?

certainly they can. but NOT because the patron is a member of one of the protected classes
EEO: Protected Classes

Isn't mandating that someone be forced to serve someone else mandating their labor?

no. they could opt instead not to provide their labor to the general public. to do so is a decision freely made

Isn't mandating that someone be forced to serve someone else on par with the government mandating that the electorate be forced to buy something that they may or may not want, may or may not be able to use?

the entity owner freely chose to open their enterprise to the public. when they did so, they agreed to adhere to the public accommodation laws

 

[justabubba]

Why do people have a right to be treated equally in employment opportunities?

because the law of the land prevails. they are often referred to as 'civil rights' laws. i am surprised you are unacquainted with them

 

[justabubba]

Liberals argue that because someone has a business they have agreed to provide everyone their labor, property and association. I have a strong suspicion that they don't actually believe it though.

no, 'everyone' is not entitled. you can exclude away all you want - except you cannot exclude those individuals because they are members of 'protected classes'

 

[Socrates1]

Affirmative action, in theory, is government help geared towards a disadvantaged group. In the US, htis is primarily geared towards ethnic minorities such as blacks and native Americans.

100 % racist !

 

[Socrates1]

Affirmative action, in theory, is government help geared towards a disadvantaged group. In the US, htis is primarily geared towards ethnic minorities such as blacks and native Americans.

When is it ok to punish a person that harmed no one and reward another that was NEVER harmed , all due to race ?

 

[justabubba]

You guys sure do promote that stuff too. Don't know why to be honest.

i cannot recall in my 64 years of anyone promoting multi-racial births

however, i can clearly recall a pronounced opposition to a 'mixing of the races' from some white members of my family - especially during the civil rights era

 

[justabubba]

We've come a long way.

and we still have a very long way to go. as this thread proves

 

[radcen]

Affirmative action, in theory, is government help geared towards a disadvantaged group. In the US, htis is primarily geared towards ethnic minorities such as blacks and native Americans.

In theory, yes. In original intent, yes. In practice, at least to the extent that it has evolved, no. I probably wouldn't favor eliminating it entirely, but I do think it should be adjusted. Unfortunately, any attempts at adjustment would be met with emotional accusations of racism, and our spineless leaders are suckers for that, hence making outright elimination the possible preferable route. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Henrin]

i cannot recall in my 64 years of anyone promoting multi-racial births

however, i can clearly recall a pronounced opposition to a 'mixing of the races' from some white members of my family - especially during the civil rights era

They promote interracial couples all the time on TV. :shrug:

 

[Henrin]

no, 'everyone' is not entitled. you can exclude away all you want - except you cannot exclude those individuals because they are members of 'protected classes'

Do I have to explain myself to the authorities on why I won't do business with someone?

 

[TurtleDude]

it is not racism if that lesser qualified black applicant is still fully qualified to fulfill the requirements of the position

had that black applicant been unqualified against the selection criteria, they could be excluded. however, where there is a disparity of black selections/hires and the black applicant meets the selection criteria, then the black applicant should be hired, even if there are other non-black applicants who are found to be more qualified than the black applicant

that is a false claim because we aren't talking about objective qualifications in most cases. what makes someone "objectively qualified" for a college seat where there are 10 applicants for every seat? How about say the olympic team? if there are two positions for the 100 meter dash team, the only two qualified individuals are the two fastest runners. Not the guy who finished 15th in the trials.

 

[TurtleDude]

yes. gender based

so you claim you are a trial attorney now? OK good. You do understand then, that affirmative action invariably creates a prima facie case of discrimination

 

[justabubba]

so you claim you are a trial attorney now? OK good. You do understand then, that affirmative action invariably creates a prima facie case of discrimination

where did i make that claim, counsel?

 

[TurtleDude]

where did i make that claim, counsel?

I asked this: anyone here other than me ever litigate a Title VII lawsuit in a federal jury trial?

Well maybe you litigated as a pro se litigant or perhaps a party though generally it means to be the one presenting evidence, questioning witnesses etc. OK that could have happened. generally that question would only be answered by someone licensed to litigate in court.

 

[justabubba]

I asked this: anyone here other than me ever litigate a Title VII lawsuit in a federal jury trial?

and i correctly answered that i had. and prevailed in that title vii (gender) case against the federal government

Well maybe you litigated as a pro se litigant or perhaps a party though generally it means to be the one presenting evidence, questioning witnesses etc. OK that could have happened. generally that question would only be answered by someone licensed to litigate in court.

and you would again be wrong

 

[seagull1776]

IMO the idea behind and creation of AA was necessary and right at the time. Similar to social security. However, now, it seems to be telling black people and other minorities, "you can't do it on your own, you're not good enough to get by on your own merits, so we're going to do it for you". AA has just become another way to alleviate personal responsibility from the masses. It's an impact of big government ideology of "we know how to run your life better than you".

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Cephus]

Absolutely not. You cannot achieve equality by enforcing inequality. It's a racist system where everyone loses.

 

[Cephus]

Sure, I suppose that is true. Still, it seems to me that if it is my business and my association that I should be the one deciding what reasons I have for hiring or not hiring someone.

Except that's not how it works. You, as an individual, can be as racist as you want. However, your business is not just an extension of you. Your individual freedom of association does not translate to your business. Your business is licensed by the state and therefore, requires that the business follow applicable laws, whether you like it or not.

 

[chuckiechan]

At first it was sold as a way to get the disadvantaged out of poverty and into jobs. I was happy as a clam to hear that. I always believed in a world where 99% of the people lived happy, productive lives and got by OK.

Then we started importing poverty.

What exactly was the point again?

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

So we're just going to pretend like the whole slavery thing didn't happen?

 

[Henrin]

Except that's not how it works. You, as an individual, can be as racist as you want. However, your business is not just an extension of you. Your individual freedom of association does not translate to your business. Your business is licensed by the state and therefore, requires that the business follow applicable laws, whether you like it or not.

Is property not an extension of the owner? If so, why is a business not an extension of its owners?

 

[TheGoverness]

So we're just going to pretend like the whole slavery thing didn't happen?

Who's doing that?

 

[chromium]

Do you mean the elected officials that swore to not violate the first amendment?

bigotry can be encouraged by religion but in the 21st century it's still on the individual, it's still bigotry first and foremost

 

[Henrin]

bigotry can be encouraged by religion but in the 21st century it's still on the individual, it's still bigotry first and foremost

I was referring to association in the first amendment, not religion.