Religious Freedom or Discrimination

[Taomon]

Thing is, if you run a mom/pop business, you can hire whomever you want. You have 50 employees or more, (I think that's still the number), you're subject to anti-discrimination laws. FWIW, I'm very torn on this issue. I think that no one should be denied a job because of race, gender, etc. On the other hand, I don't think anyone should get a job if they aren't as qualified as someone else for the position.

It's a quandry. And it's perhaps more deserving of discussion other than, "you're a racist" or "you're a bleeding heart". And I say this as a mom to a kid who may not get into the middle school he deserves to be in because he has a jew last name.

There are some good arguments both ways.

I agree with you. Hiring someone just to fill a quota is wrong. Hire people based on experience or knowledge/licensing.
And that is the way it is supposed to be.

 

[Taomon]

You know, there are a lot of bigots and anti-semites on this board. Gunny happens not to be one of them.

And I am not accusing him of being one, he is the one painting himself that way, probably as a way to just disagree with everything I say. He does that.

 

[Gunny]

Thing is, if you run a mom/pop business, you can hire whomever you want. You have 50 employees or more, (I think that's still the number), you're subject to anti-discrimination laws. FWIW, I'm very torn on this issue. I think that no one should be denied a job because of race, gender, etc. On the other hand, I don't think anyone should get a job if they aren't as qualified as someone else for the position.

It's a quandry. And it's perhaps more deserving of discussion other than, "you're a racist" or "you're a bleeding heart". And I say this as a mom to a kid who may not get into the middle school he deserves to be in because he has a jew last name.

There are some good arguments both ways.

I think if one owns a business and denies employment based on race, gender, sexual orientation or any other personal bias rather than qualification is only hurting themselves.

I also believe it is completely their right to do so, or should be.

I agree insofar as there are good arguments on either side. Problem is, the argument is being presented by an extremist who appears to be all for fascism so long as it suits HIS agenda.

I honestly don't agree with extremism either way. I personally could care less who is what. If you can hump ammo, you're in. However, I usually base my discriminatory choices on qualification, not asthetics.

 

[Gunny]

No gunny, you sought to create an atmosphere of bigoted hostility here by acting like you are in favor of discrimination. So are we all to assume, going forward, that you are acting when you start belligerently arguing?

Ummm ... no? You need to go back and look at my original post in this thread. I merely put a definition to a word you try to sling around like a battle axe as if it, in and of itself, is an argument.

You also have presented a double standard in that you find it fine and dandy that whoever suits your cause cause flaunt whatever, even if it's completely irrelevant. Unless one is a porn star, one's sexual orientation is nobody's business.

In addition to that, you promote fascism so long as it supports what YOU think is right. Nobody else's opinion counts.

 

[Taomon]

I agree insofar as there are good arguments on either side. Problem is, the argument is being presented by an extremist who appears to be all for fascism so long as it suits HIS agenda.

And that proves my contention that you automatically disagree with everything I say, not because you necessarily believe your position, but because it is the opposite of MINE.

 

[Taomon]

Ummm ... no? You need to go back and look at my original post in this thread. I merely put a definition to a word you try to sling around like a battle axe as if it, in and of itself, is an argument.

You also have presented a double standard in that you find it fine and dandy that whoever suits your cause cause flaunt whatever, even if it's completely irrelevant. Unless one is a porn star, one's sexual orientation is nobody's business.

In addition to that, you promote fascism so long as it supports what YOU think is right. Nobody else's opinion counts.

I don't support fascism, I support equality. I stated a number of times that the person best qualified for a job should be hired regardless of anything else. I even stated that quotas are wrong (which is in alignment with part of your contention so you now have to change your opinion if you don't want to be viewed as weak on extremism).

I don't think someone should get a job just because they are black, or gay or whatever. I simply stated that it is the law that a job applicant cannot be denied a position based on their color, sexuality, sex, etc...if they are truly qualified.

And that is the correct ethical stance as well. You don't practice bigotry so why are you trying to make an argument for it?

Because I made an argument against it. Are you really that shallow? C'mon gunny, I figured you were stronger than that.

 

[mattskramer]

And I am telling you that you are wrong. You tried to make your point by naming Harlem and I refuted that by making the obvious point that there are no whites seeking employment in Harlem

I can be as nitpicky as anyone here. Check your comment again. You said “I haven't seen any whites seeking employment in Harlem…” That does not mean that there has never been an attempt by a white person to seek employment in Harlem. Unless you have been at every business instantaneously every hour for the past several years, you do not know that there has never been an attempt by a white person to seek employment in Harlem. Logically speaking, it is practically impossible to prove the inexistence of something.

...and this argument is about employment law. Try to stay on point here please.

It seems as though, at least in one post, you branch off and not just talk about what the law is but whether or not it should be changed (if the law exists). See post # 55 and 60. You don’t seem to be arguing the existence of law. Don’t play the “holier than thou” bit. You are guilty of subtly moving off the supposed topic too. I’m not that interested in talking about what is. As I said before in this very thread, I’m not sure to what extent the EEOC applies to private business. I’m talking about what should be and it should be the case that private businesses be free to discriminate as they see fit.

 

[Taomon]

I can be as nitpicky as anyone here. Check your comment again. You said “I haven't seen any whites seeking employment in Harlem…” That does not mean that there has never been an attempt by a white person to seek employment in Harlem. Unless you have been at every business instantaneously every hour for the past several years, you do not know that there has never been an attempt by a white person to seek employment in Harlem. Logically speaking, it is practically impossible to prove the inexistence of something.



It seems as though, at least in one post, you branch off and not just talk about what the law is but whether or not it should be changed (if the law exists). See post # 55 and 60. You don’t seem to be arguing the existence of law. Don’t play the “holier than thou” bit. You are guilty of subtly moving off the supposed topic too. I’m not that interested in talking about what is. As I said before in this very thread, I’m not sure to what extent the EEOC applies to private business. I’m talking about what should be and it should be the case that private businesses be free to discriminate as they see fit.

You bore me.

 

[mattskramer]

You bore me.

Sound calm logic and reasoning often does bore people.

 

[Taomon]

Sound calm logic and reasoning often does bore people.

Too bad you don't have either

 

[mattskramer]

Too bad you don't have either

Whatever.

 

[Gunny]

And that proves my contention that you automatically disagree with everything I say, not because you necessarily believe your position, but because it is the opposite of MINE.

LMAO ... dude, you are just SO lame. GMAFB, huh? Let me draw this out for you with the big crayons ...

Who are you? You are nobody. Your contention is as misguided as you uber-liberal idealism. I disagree with extremism. I disagree with extremists and their extremism. I most especially disagree with ultra-left extremism. I disagree even more than that with people who cannot differentiate between their ultra-left, extremist verisons of utopia and the reality in which we live.

I disagree with the hypocrisy of uber-lefties who whine and bitch about their rights yet are more than willing to force their ideas down everyone else's throats.

And guess what dude ... I held those viewpoints LONG before you. You aren't special. You're just "another."

So stop you're damned whining, huh?

 

[Gunny]

I don't support fascism, I support equality. I stated a number of times that the person best qualified for a job should be hired regardless of anything else. I even stated that quotas are wrong (which is in alignment with part of your contention so you now have to change your opinion if you don't want to be viewed as weak on extremism).

I don't think someone should get a job just because they are black, or gay or whatever. I simply stated that it is the law that a job applicant cannot be denied a position based on their color, sexuality, sex, etc...if they are truly qualified.

And that is the correct ethical stance as well. You don't practice bigotry so why are you trying to make an argument for it?

Because I made an argument against it. Are you really that shallow? C'mon gunny, I figured you were stronger than that.

Forcing people to do what YOU think is right in violation of THEIR rights is fascist .. plain and simple.

Bigots have rights too, dude. You don't have to be one to understand that. THAT is equality.

 

[Taomon]

LMAO ... dude, you are just SO lame. GMAFB, huh? Let me draw this out for you with the big crayons ...

Who are you? You are nobody. Your contention is as misguided as you uber-liberal idealism. I disagree with extremism. I disagree with extremists and their extremism. I most especially disagree with ultra-left extremism. I disagree even more than that with people who cannot differentiate between their ultra-left, extremist verisons of utopia and the reality in which we live.

I disagree with the hypocrisy of uber-lefties who whine and bitch about their rights yet are more than willing to force their ideas down everyone else's throats.

And guess what dude ... I held those viewpoints LONG before you. You aren't special. You're just "another."

So stop you're damned whining, huh?

I am nothing and so are you. What is the point of that other than to try and belittle me. I know you don't like me and that is fine.

But if I make a valid point and I have a number of times, your contention is that since I am (in your opinion) an extremist, I can never be right, even when I am? And you must disagree with anything and everything I say because you are against extremism?

So then I am right to say that you blindly disagree with every point I have made and will make simply because I made it. You can spin it anyway you want gunny, but that is the basic truth of it. If Bush said A + B = C you would agree or disgree depending on how you reason it out...but if I say A + B = C you would automatically disagree because you consider me (does not make it true) an extremist. And that is only your opinion and that is one in a million.

Not everyone agrees with you and your opinion is a drop in the bucket...or as you put it, you are nobody.

 

[Taomon]

Forcing people to do what YOU think is right in violation of THEIR rights is fascist .. plain and simple.

Bigots have rights too, dude. You don't have to be one to understand that. THAT is equality.

And the legislators who made the employment laws apparently disagree with you so what now? You can cry all day about how my view is fascist, but the basic truth is that my opinion is alignment with the law and yours is not.

End of discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the legislators who made the employment laws apparently disagree with you so what now? You can cry all day about how my view is fascist, but the basic truth is that my opinion is alignment with the law and yours is not.

End of discussion.

The law in most states allows the government to seize your property and give it to a devleoper for no better reason than the developer's projects will produce more taxes.

The law in several states and in some cases federally prohibits denial of drivers licenses or jobs or schooling or welfare or disability benefits or routine health care for illegal immigrants.

The law allows a doctor to kill a baby so long as the crown of its head has not yet emerged from the womb.

The law allows the government to seize your vehicle or your boat or your airplane or your home if they only suspect that you are dealing in drug trafficking and, after your reputation and means of making a living is destroyed, it owes you no restitution whatsoever even after it pronounces you innocent.

The law can put up cameras and photograph you speeding or running a red light, and can impose a stiff fine even if you are positive you are innocent and you will have no place to go to plead your case.

We live in a great country with great freedoms, but the law can nevertheless get it very wrong. I suggest that the fact that there is a law should not be the end of discussion on many things.

 

[Shogun]

We are talking about employment law here...you might want to actually read the posts and be fully informed of what the discussion is about...and discrimination is against the law and an actionable offense in all employment instances.

No, sir, YOU might want to read the law. Discrimination is against the law for specific criteria. These criteria are, specifically:

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
* the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
* the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
* Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
* Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
* the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.


None of which address sexual orientation. It is not a protected status under any federal discrimination laws.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html


Applicable to:

IV. Which Employers and Other Entities Are Covered by These Laws?

Title VII and the ADA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

The ADEA covers all private employers with 20 or more employees, state and local governments (including school districts), employment agencies and labor organizations.

The EPA covers all employers who are covered by the Federal Wage and Hour Law (the Fair Labor Standards Act). Virtually all employers are subject to the provisions of this Act.

Title VII, the ADEA, and the EPA also cover the federal government. In addition, the federal government is covered by Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which incorporate the requirements of the ADA. However, different procedures are used for processing complaints of federal discrimination. For more information on how to file a complaint of federal discrimination, contact the EEO office of the federal agency where the alleged discrimination occurred.

The CSRA (not enforced by EEOC) covers most federal agency employees except employees of a government corporation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and as determined by the President, any executive agency or unit thereof, the principal function of which is the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, or the General Accounting Office.

same link.

 

[Shogun]

um, buddy, whites are not discriminated against.

It can be argued that any quota system based on ethnicity where the ethnic populations are not distributed evenly is, in fact, discrimination.

 

[Shogun]

You know, there are a lot of bigots and anti-semites on this board. Gunny happens not to be one of them.

Watch out for the goyim hating new master race too, dude, or you'll find yourself with a Scarlet A in no time!

 

[Annie]

It can be argued that any quota system based on ethnicity where the ethnic populations are not distributed evenly is, in fact, discrimination.

Correct. I can make a very strong case that boys in general are discriminated against in the education arena. Later, that becomes further discrimination against white males in higher education, (minority males still suffer from the ill-effects of the earlier bias, but gain points towards admission-not graduation.)