Is it an Employer's Right to Discriminate?

[manifold]

Bottom line: Anti-discrimination laws are anti-freedom. Period.

You may be able to offer a laundry list of reasons why you think they're still necessary. But anyone that denies that they are anti-freedom is either retarded or intellectually dishonest.

 

[ihopehefails]

We tried that one guys and guess what happened?

It is very hard to run a country with large segments of the population is refused any decent means of providing for themselves.

Go study the history of the afrimative action.

Go study a little black history.

You will see the unfairness that was there and you will realize why these laws have to exsist.

Your society will rend its self from the inside out if you leave a segment of your population out of the economic loop.

Let me paraphrase what you just said. People choosing freely for themselves didn't yield the results you wanted so you decided to remove that freedom from them so now people are obeying what you think they should be doing.

The question I have is who said we have to live by your standard of behavior?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bullshit manifold.

IH, the elected government of this country

 

[ihopehefails]

Absolutely.

The owner of a business should be able to hire or not hire or fire or not fire anyone he wants.

Period.

I agree. Even if the reasons are unfair to begin with.

Living in a free society pretty much means that someone else can live by their own moral beliefs. Thats why I am a "liberal" and think that these fair hiring laws should be removed.

Look if anyone wants to hire people that are not the best candidate for any reason it's fine by me.

If some dyed in the wool racist refuses to hire a Black guy who cares? It leaves a good candidate for someone else to hire or not.

The only person a business owner like that is hurting is himself. If he's OK with it, why shouldn't I be.

Next thing you know is that the government will mandate that we all have a specific quota of friends from every racial group.

Well said. I agree with your statement.

 

[Shogun]

Look if anyone wants to hire people that are not the best candidate for any reason it's fine by me.

If some dyed in the wool racist refuses to hire a Black guy who cares? It leaves a good candidate for someone else to hire or not.

Like I said.. feel free to take your case to the supreme court. don't mind me betting against your chances..

The way things are and the way things should be never coexist.

your opinion is noted and is being delegated to file 13. Thanks for your interest and we wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

[Shogun]

We tried that one guys and guess what happened?

It is very hard to run a country with large segments of the population is refused any decent means of providing for themselves.

Go study the history of the afrimative action.

Go study a little black history.

You will see the unfairness that was there and you will realize why these laws have to exsist.

Your society will rend its self from the inside out if you leave a segment of your population out of the economic loop.

Let me paraphrase what you just said. People choosing freely for themselves didn't yield the results you wanted so you decided to remove that freedom from them so now people are obeying what you think they should be doing.

The question I have is who said we have to live by your standard of behavior?

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is it an Employer's Right to Discriminate?

Sure. By law, within the bounds of the law. Why not?

It is often been said that conservatives are sexest because they believe in the traditional family of mom stay at home and father go to work. I don't really agree with that but, for argument sake, lets assume this is true. Isn't it someone's right to believe as they do and isn't it someone's personal choice as to what they think is right for their own life without having the PC police telling them otherwise. The next statement liberals make is that this violates someone's rights but how is this true when most conservatives who believe in this "lifestyle choice" usually do not seek laws mandating that to happen which allows a person to execute their personal choice as they see fit over their own lives regardless if that choice is deemed morally right or wrong by others.

The claim that someone's choice of how they want to live their life somehow violates your own choice to live your life differently such as not believing a woman's place is in her home is absurd because it is impossible for someone's independent will to violate your own will of how you should live your own life.

Now I suppose it can be argued that an employer who will not hire a woman because he believes women should stay home and raise kids violates a person's own belief that they shouldn't so the remedy is a law that forces the employers to hire that woman which violates his rights to conduct his life as he wishes.

I ask, at this point, who's rights are being violated by the law? Is it the woman's or is it the employers right to decide how they want to live their life (albeit for reasons most people don't agree with). It can be argued that, without the law, that the woman's rights are being violated but were her rights being violated by any action of the law?

This is where the real root of freedom exists and that is in the absence of law and if you think that the employers has to give up his freedom to be evil then every evil thing that people can do, such as adultry, has to be made illegal. It can be done for the same reason that the woman says it is her right to be treated fairly by an employer and that is it is her right to have a non-cheating husband so now adultry is a crime just like every other evil is which is another loss of freedom because someone believed they had a right over the behaviors of others.

"PC Police?"

I got that far before i realized where you were coming from. Have fun with teh circle jerk.

 

[ihopehefails]

Bullshit manifold.

IH, the elected government of this country

What happens if we flipped that on you and a bunch of racist got elected and decided that non-racist employers, who want to hire non-whites, could no longer hire any non-whites. You would then ask "Why do we have to live by your standard?" Their response "the elected government of this country".

Does that make it morally correct and does that justify someone removal of their freedom in order to get achieve some social goal of the people in power?

 

[believer]

It is often been said that conservatives are sexest because they believe in the traditional family of mom stay at home and father go to work. I don't really agree with that but, for argument sake, lets assume this is true. Isn't it someone's right to believe as they do and isn't it someone's personal choice as to what they think is right for their own life without having the PC police telling them otherwise. The next statement liberals make is that this violates someone's rights but how is this true when most conservatives who believe in this "lifestyle choice" usually do not seek laws mandating that to happen which allows a person to execute their personal choice as they see fit over their own lives regardless if that choice is deemed morally right or wrong by others.

The claim that someone's choice of how they want to live their life somehow violates your own choice to live your life differently such as not believing a woman's place is in her home is absurd because it is impossible for someone's independent will to violate your own will of how you should live your own life.

Now I suppose it can be argued that an employer who will not hire a woman because he believes women should stay home and raise kids violates a person's own belief that they shouldn't so the remedy is a law that forces the employers to hire that woman which violates his rights to conduct his life as he wishes.

I ask, at this point, who's rights are being violated by the law? Is it the woman's or is it the employers right to decide how they want to live their life (albeit for reasons most people don't agree with). It can be argued that, without the law, that the woman's rights are being violated but were her rights being violated by any action of the law?

This is where the real root of freedom exists and that is in the absence of law and if you think that the employers has to give up his freedom to be evil then every evil thing that people can do, such as adultry, has to be made illegal. It can be done for the same reason that the woman says it is her right to be treated fairly by an employer and that is it is her right to have a non-cheating husband so now adultry is a crime just like every other evil is which is another loss of freedom because someone believed they had a right over the behaviors of others.

Very well put. It's unfortunate we have come to the point that we rely on laws to dictate how we should live and behave even when it is only a matter of common sense. I, for one, would never want to work for someone who would hire me only if forced to. This, like a myriad of issues, should probably not even be a legal issue. I suspect too many have made this an issue only because they are unable to accept the fact they are not wanted, could care less who their employer is (and probably are as concientious about their quality of work) or believe it their God-given right to be provided "fair and legal advantage" because they may not be the desired candidate for the job and would be hired only if the employer was forced to do so.

 

[ihopehefails]

We tried that one guys and guess what happened?

It is very hard to run a country with large segments of the population is refused any decent means of providing for themselves.

Go study the history of the afrimative action.

Go study a little black history.

You will see the unfairness that was there and you will realize why these laws have to exsist.

Your society will rend its self from the inside out if you leave a segment of your population out of the economic loop.

Let me paraphrase what you just said. People choosing freely for themselves didn't yield the results you wanted so you decided to remove that freedom from them so now people are obeying what you think they should be doing.

The question I have is who said we have to live by your standard of behavior?

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let me paraphrase what you just said. People choosing freely for themselves didn't yield the results you wanted so you decided to remove that freedom from them so now people are obeying what you think they should be doing.

The question I have is who said we have to live by your standard of behavior?

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

No

The government and it's gaggle of corrupt politicians knows better than you how you should live your life.

 

[Shogun]

Let me paraphrase what you just said. People choosing freely for themselves didn't yield the results you wanted so you decided to remove that freedom from them so now people are obeying what you think they should be doing.

The question I have is who said we have to live by your standard of behavior?

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

nope. sorry. go ask a rastafarian all about the absolute freedom to abide by illegal religious tenets. If my faith is based on killing conservatives I'm sure you'll be glad that I'm not given free reign to practice my faith. In this case, the fed has protected status's that you may not agree with, and that is your right, but you will abide by them until you figure out a way to remove these standards.

 

[Shogun]

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

No

The government and it's gaggle of corrupt politicians knows better than you how you should live your life.

oh the irony.. so rich.. so SAVORY.

 

[ihopehefails]

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

No

The government and it's gaggle of corrupt politicians knows better than you how you should live your life.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

No

The government and it's gaggle of corrupt politicians knows better than you how you should live your life.

oh the irony.. so rich.. so SAVORY.

and little bitches like you love that way

 

[Shogun]

No

The government and it's gaggle of corrupt politicians knows better than you how you should live your life.

oh the irony.. so rich.. so SAVORY.

and little bitches like you love that way

stomping your foot like a tantrum throwing child in a toy store won't overturn these laws.

Maybe you can be a little less ironic when supporting government bans on personal behavour during this upcoming election season. Until then... there is always the militia option.

 

[VaYank5150]

Bullshit manifold.

IH, the elected government of this country

What happens if we flipped that on you and a bunch of racist got elected and decided that non-racist employers, who want to hire non-whites, could no longer hire any non-whites. You would then ask "Why do we have to live by your standard?" Their response "the elected government of this country".

Does that make it morally correct and does that justify someone removal of their freedom in order to get achieve some social goal of the people in power?

There is nothing binding anyone to this country. If you feel your rights are being trampled on, then you are free to leave and go to another country of your choice, where your freedoms can be better exercised. Try Iraq, or maybe Afghanistan first. Yemen is coming.

 

[Skull Pilot]

oh the irony.. so rich.. so SAVORY.

and little bitches like you love that way

stomping your foot like a tantrum throwing child in a toy store won't overturn these laws.

Maybe you can be a little less ironic when supporting government bans on personal behavour during this upcoming election season. Until then... there is always the militia option.

I am not throwing a tantrum.

Leave it to a government lackey to say disagreeing with idiotic laws is throwing a tantrum

 

[ihopehefails]

well, currently the Federal Government. I guess it's time to enlist in that militia....

That is a very strange roll that you have assigned to government. You seem to believe that government decides the standard of behavior. What if my own religion told me otherwise or my own moral standard said it was OK. Am I not free to choose how I should live my own life?

nope. sorry. go ask a rastafarian all about the absolute freedom to abide by illegal religious tenets. If my faith is based on killing conservatives I'm sure you'll be glad that I'm not given free reign to practice my faith. In this case, the fed has protected status's that you may not agree with, and that is your right, but you will abide by them until you figure out a way to remove these standards.

Some government restrictions are needed in order to protect the safety of other people which is why we have government in the first place. Its because of our inabilities to live completely free and still maintain a society where people won't harm other people such as killing conservatives.

Its the reason why western towns wanted laws. They wanted lawmen to protect the safety of citizens from the unruly types. They were perfectly happy before that (even if some people did discriminate) without the "sheriff".

 

[ihopehefails]

Bullshit manifold.

IH, the elected government of this country

What happens if we flipped that on you and a bunch of racist got elected and decided that non-racist employers, who want to hire non-whites, could no longer hire any non-whites. You would then ask "Why do we have to live by your standard?" Their response "the elected government of this country".

Does that make it morally correct and does that justify someone removal of their freedom in order to get achieve some social goal of the people in power?

There is nothing binding anyone to this country. If you feel your rights are being trampled on, then you are free to leave and go to another country of your choice, where your freedoms can be better exercised. Try Iraq, or maybe Afghanistan first. Yemen is coming.

I know but my freedoms exist no matter what country I am in so I really don't have to move in order to enjoy my freedoms. Its the government that has to move.