Inspired by Ersco: Should it be legal to fire someone for being an atheist?
if you substitute the word atheist with christian and that changes your answer, you are an asshole.
That. And I don't think it should be legal for either
I'm an atheist but I'm also a libertarian. I voted yes. I think that if companies want to shoot themselves in the foot by being discriminatory, they should have the right to.
You don't think the government has an obligation to protect its citizens?
I think that's where unions come into play. I'm not a big fan of them but they would be the only way to have equal power and leverage in a situation like this.
It should be legal to fire someone for any reason at all.
Even because they're Catholic?
Did you expect me to say no?
No, I just felt like poking you with a stick :)
How about firing all my female employees for not sucking my dick? Should that be legal?
Cameron, I can't believe you just wrote that.
Yes, cameron. That should be legal.
I said "any reason at all."
I didn't say "any reason at all except some vulgar example someone comes up with in an attempt to shock me into changing my mind."
So what you're saying is you don't want me to comment more outrageous scenarios that won't change your mind anyway?
I'm saying that if you want to have an intelligent conversation about this, you're off to a bad start.
But if I just want to make some vulgar jokes I'm off to a great start right?
Yes, in that case you're doing a great job.
Hey Milkdud check out my most recent question for a less vulgar scenario about this issue ya know if you want to.
What's your reasoning? I'm genuinely interested why you think an employer should get a free pass for any bad behavior.
I didn't say they should get a free pass.
If they mistreat their employees, the employees are free to leave, their prospective employee pool will be further limited because some people won't want to work there, and the gen public may go elsewhere.
Why is it ok for you to force your morality on a business owner by dictating how their employee/employer relationships should work when you aren't even directly involved in?
I don't know how that extra "in" got in there.
I'm fine with employees working together to balance power in the employer/employee arrangement, but I draw the line at a third party, like government, dictating the terms of that arrangement because they have no vested interest in that relationship
But of course the government *does* have an interest in the well-being of its citizens (besides the fact that it's unethical to allow someone to discriminate when you could stop it.)
1. How is the government securing the employer's well-being by forcing him to retain an employee he doesn't want to employ?
2. Why is anything unethical? That sounds like a personal values statement to me and I thought you opposed forcing arbitrary values on others.
3. Why should I stop it? Where does that belief come from and why does it give me the right to inflict my values on other people as I see fit?
4. Discriminate? We discriminate all the time. The simple practice of choosing to hire one person over another is an act of discrimination. Why is it wrong in this particular case and not in others?
I could keep going with my list of things that are wrong with your statement, but I'll stop there to see if you want to continue this.
Sure, I'm always happy to correct your mistaken thinking in the hopes that someday you will see the light :)
1) you're right, the government does have to make a choice here between the employer's interests and the employee's interests. Since the employer is in the position of power, they have a greater responsibility.
The employee, likewise, is in need of more protection. The courts and our laws have always sided with the person in the position of less power. The employee has to have a job, but the employer doesn't have to have a business.
You're operating on the erroneous assumption that employers have all the power and employees do not.
My latest poll demonstrates that this is not true.
2) no, as I've discussed before, collective societal ethics are and must be the basis for our laws. We decided we don't want to murder each other, for example, and this is good for society.
Likewise, we've decided that our group ethics include non-discrimination. You may not personally like this, but it has been codified in our laws since the beginning of the country.
employees have to have a job, but employers don't have to have businesses.
Who will employ employees if employers don't have businesses, Kermie?
3) answered with #2
4) you are smart enough to understand the difference between discretion based on someone's behaviors and discriminating based on unchosen, protected traits.
You're just pretending not to understand the difference.
By the way, I'm not entirely convinced of the appropriateness of including someone's religion (the basis for this poll) alongside traits like sex and race.
But for better or worse, that's where we've landed as a society. And when there is a question it's always better to side with justice.
You are really making the claim that sex isn't a choice, are you?
There is going to be a transgendered riot outside your door.
I didn't say "all" the power. I said more power/less power. You also understand this difference.
*rolling my eyes* yes we need employers, but any given person does not need to and is never forced to have a business. You're being silly now and grasping at straws. Try responding to my points or just stop.
My bad, I thought you wanted a serious discussion. You're just being an ass now. Good night.
Kermie, you haven't really said anything worth responding to. Your points amount to little more than "uh huh" statements.
For example, "We are all accountable to Kermie's ethics because society says so" doesn't really address my point.
Likewise, reiterating that the government picks winners and losers doesn't justify it. It only further demonstrates that the government's involvement guarantees that someone loses.
Likewise, in regard to discrimination your analysis is simply that the government guarantees businesses will always lose when dealing with certain protected groups while not awarding this superpower to others. Again, Picking winners and losers.
In other words, you're bringing a knife to a milkdud fight.