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.
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.
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."
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'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.)
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?
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.
That's gibberish.
Who will employ employees if employers don't have businesses, Kermie?
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.
*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.
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.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment