|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jan 18, 2004 4:04:16 GMT -5
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 17, 2004 6:35:32 GMT -5
But then governments get involved and screw everything up. As it is right now, it is perfect. Choices for everyone. The majority of people don’t think a business should discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation – and the majority of businesses don’t do that – 92%, according to the HRC. That leaves 8% of the businesses in this country free to hire all the bigots and homophobes they want and keep them the fuck out of my office. But there is a minority whose rights are being threatened. It’s that 8 percent. From the HRC to the ACLU, there are organizations out there fighting to take away an individual’s right to hire or not hire anyone he chooses. This is America, kids, and it is based largely on the idea that each individual has the freedom of association. Just as an employee has the right to work or not work anywhere he chooses, an employer should have the right to hire or fire anyone he chooses. In the same way, as a consumer has the right to buy or not buy anything he wants, a producer should have the right to sell or not sell to whomever he wants. Neither you, I, nor anyone else should be able to impose our values on anyone else. - Rick Rick. I can't believe you're saying this. Would it be ok for a company to refuse to hire someone just because they're Black or Jewish or Muslin ? What about the disabled. What if they don't want to spend all that money to install wheelchair ramps etc? While the HRC might tell you that 92% of businesses do not discriminate in their hiring practices, you didn't mention that most of those businesses still do not offer domestic partner benifits to their gay and lesbian employees. Why should they if they don't have to. That's why we need federal protection under the law. I pay my taxes and except for my love of marijuana, I follow the laws of the land. Yet I'm still a second class citizen in this country. If you expect big business to do the right thing just because, well don't hold your breath. Bush is attempting to change the constitution to make sure that we are never allowed the same rights as our straight counterparts. Make no mistake. This administration has declared war on gays and lesbians in this country. Words and good intentions will not win the war. We must make the laws of the land represent all of the people. The civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's taught us that separate is NOT equal. Peace |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 17, 2004 6:39:08 GMT -5
Rated this file excellent because you did stimulate my passion for the subject matter, but I don't agree with you. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 18, 2004 3:23:53 GMT -5
Rick. I can't believe you're saying this. Would it be ok for a company to refuse to hire someone just because they're Black or Jewish or Muslin ? What about the disabled. What if they don't want to spend all that money to install wheelchair ramps etc? While the HRC might tell you that 92% of businesses do not discriminate in their hiring practices, you didn't mention that most of those businesses still do not offer domestic partner benifits to their gay and lesbian employees. Why should they if they don't have to. That's why we need federal protection under the law. I pay my taxes and except for my love of marijuana, I follow the laws of the land. Yet I'm still a second class citizen in this country. If you expect big business to do the right thing just because, well don't hold your breath. Bush is attempting to change the constitution to make sure that we are never allowed the same rights as our straight counterparts. Make no mistake. This administration has declared war on gays and lesbians in this country. Words and good intentions will not win the war. We must make the laws of the land represent all of the people. The civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's taught us that separate is NOT equal. Peace I agree with your sentiment (I doubt you thought I wouldn't), and I agree that separate is not neccessarily equal. I agree that the Federal Marriage Amendment is an attempt to enshrine injustice. I believe that many components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments are also attempts to enshrine injustice. You asked me, "Would it be ok for a company to refuse to hire someone just because they're Black or Jewish or Muslim?" My answer is no, it would not be okay. But it would be their right. I would never shop at those places, and would vocally admonish them for their bigoted practices, but would still defend their right to be fuckholes. It is the position I have taken on the Boy Scouts, as well. They have the right to discriminate against homosexuals, no matter how stupid and irrational it is. Unfortunately, because of those views, Connor will never get to be a part of their otherwise good organization, at least until they change that view. There was a great episode of South Park called "Cripple Fight," where Big Gay Al is kicked out of the scouts for being gay. The person they got to replace him was not gay, and proceeded to molest all the scouts. The SP kids took the scouts to court to force them to allow Big Gay Al back in, and they won. The following is from Big Gay Al's response to the ruling: Look, I appreciate what you kids did; really, I really do. But this isn't what I wanted. I'm proud to be gay. And I'm proud to be in a country where I'm free to express myself. But freedom is a two-way street. If I'm free to express myself, then the Scouts have to be free to express themselves, too. I know these men. They are good men. They are kind men. They do what they think is best for kids. No matter how wrong we think they might be, it isn't right for us to force them to think our way. It's up to us to persuade, and help them see the light, not extort them to. Please, don't cut the Scouts' funding. The Scouts help and have always helped a lot of kids. That's why I love them. I will continue to persuade them to change their mind, but this is the wrong way to do it. So, I am hereby dropping my case, and allowing the Scouts their right to not allow gays into their private club. It really is a two way street. A group has the right to start Miss Black America, The Advocate has the right to hire only gay reporters and columnists (if that's what they do), private colleges have the right to discriminate in the name of diversity, New Lady Fitness has a right to turn away men, and the UNCF has the right to only give scholarships to African Americans. Likewise, a person with a business should get to decide whom they want to do business with, who they want to hire and fire, and who they want to promote. If they pass up good talent for stupid reasons, that is a mistake that will cost them in lost productivity, revenue, and goodwill. Furthermore, public pressure against blatantly arbitrary and racist companies is severe. Off the top of my head, I can think of two big examples of companies that have bent over backward to shed a racist image - the Adam's Mark Hotels and Denny's. There are plenty of clubs and plenty of jobs out there for people of all views, no matter how enlightened or repugnant. Only when we have a system that allows each individual to offer or not offer their services, and other individuals to offer or not their money for those services - completely voluntarily - will there be room for coexistence and harmony. In the Freedom File, I quoted David Boaz, and I think it is something that bears repeating: “People who may not see themselves as comfortable members of a tight community with the others in the group can come together for a specific purpose, in the process learning to coexist if not to embrace.” This is what is at the heart of liberty - that people with varying views and outlooks can coexist peacefully and without rancor, as long as the State protects our property rights in our things and our selves, treating every individual as equal before the law, leaving us otherwise free to regulate the course of our lives. The core of this ideal was addressed succintly by US Senator and presidential candidate, the brilliant Barry Goldwater: "Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism." - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 18, 2004 8:47:18 GMT -5
You forgot to mention how Big Gay Al was labeled a homophobe by the residents of South Park after his speech ;D
I have never been discriminated against based on my gender, color or religion, so maybe I don't have an accurate point of view, but I wouldn't want to work for a company that was forced to hire me. I'd much rather work for a company that valued me and my services for what we are able to provide rather than because of my skin color, penis or yahmulka (or lack thereof).
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 20, 2004 7:20:38 GMT -5
While a school, business or any other organization may be free to hire or not as they choose, they certainly should not ever be receiving any federal funds if they discriminate. My employer receives federal money for being a drug free workplace. So my tax dollars are funneled into companies that do discriminate if not in their hiring practices then by not allowing us to have the same benefits as our straight co-
workers. And South Park's sentimental waxing over the boy scouts is really pretty corny. I would never give money or support any organization that refused to allow children of a different orientation to join. You don't know how the boys who have been kicked out feel after giving so much of their lives to the group. No one should be allowed to discriminate against kids. When meetings are held in public schools and all their friends are going, they have to decide to hide in the closet or be treated like they are not as good because they are gay. This is not as simple as "everyone has the right to be an asshole." Doesn't that 13yr old boy have the right to participate in the same after school programs as their classmates? Isn't this a violation of his rights if he can't. Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 20, 2004 8:41:05 GMT -5
While a school, business or any other organization may be free to hire or not as they choose, they certainly should not ever be receiving any federal funds if they discriminate. My employer receives federal money for being a drug free workplace. So my tax dollars are funneled into companies that do discriminate if not in their hiring practices then by not allowing us to have the same benefits as our straight co- workers. And South Park's sentimental waxing over the boy scouts is really pretty corny. I would never give money or support any organization that refused to allow children of a different orientation to join. You don't know how the boys who have been kicked out feel after giving so much of their lives to the group. No one should be allowed to discriminate against kids. When meetings are held in public schools and all their friends are going, they have to decide to hide in the closet or be treated like they are not as good because they are gay. This is not as simple as "everyone has the right to be an asshole." Doesn't that 13yr old boy have the right to participate in the same after school programs as their classmates? Isn't this a violation of his rights if he can't. Peace I agree that no employer that discriminates should receive federal funds. To be perfectly honest, I don't think any business should receive federal funds at all, discrimination or no. You have every right to not support businesses and organizations that discriminate (and, for the record, I don't support the Boy Scouts either, for their policy), however, as stupid as it may sound, other people have as much right to disagree with your beliefs and practices as you and I (and many others) disagree with theirs. Corny as South Park may be, freedom really is a two-way street. Here is where Libertarians get kind of a bad rap. You do not have the right to a job. You have the right to offer your services for money or to offer your money for services, but you have no right to force anyone to pay for your services just as slavers had no right to force slaves to work for them. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 20, 2004 13:40:42 GMT -5
I agree that no employer that discriminates should receive federal funds. To be perfectly honest, I don't think any business should receive federal funds at all, discrimination or no. You have every right to not support businesses and organizations that discriminate (and, for the record, I don't support the Boy Scouts either, for their policy), however, as stupid as it may sound, other people have as much right to disagree with your beliefs and practices as you and I (and many others) disagree with theirs. Corny as South Park may be, freedom really is a two-way street. Here is where Libertarians get kind of a bad rap. You do not have the right to a job. You have the right to offer your services for money or to offer your money for services, but you have no right to force anyone to pay for your services just as slavers had no right to force slaves to work for them. There's really nothing I can add to this. Well said! - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Feb 21, 2004 2:42:04 GMT -5
Here is where Libertarians get kind of a bad rap. You do not have the right to a job. You have the right to offer your services for money or to offer your money for services, but you have no right to force anyone to pay for your services just as slavers had no right to force slaves to work for them. You do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in this capitalist society that means the pursuit of the so called American dream. Shouldn't we all have the same opportunities to succeed or fail? You say that we can't force people to do the right thing but I say why not? Isn't that why we have laws against murder and theft? Why is it so wrong for big business to have laws against discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate against the disabled. How do you feel about that. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 21, 2004 4:56:31 GMT -5
oops! That was not emilysrevolution's post, just outgirl forgetting to sign in. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 22, 2004 10:18:03 GMT -5
You do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in this capitalist society that means the pursuit of the so called American dream. Shouldn't we all have the same opportunities to succeed or fail? You say that we can't force people to do the right thing but I say why not? Isn't that why we have laws against murder and theft? Why is it so wrong for big business to have laws against discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate against the disabled. How do you feel about that. Yes, we're all entitled to pursuit of the American Dream. We do all have the same opportunities to succeed or fail. No law anywhere in the United States makes it illegal to work based on one's color, religion, sexual preference, etc. We can't force anyone to do the 'right thing', because the 'right thing' is relative. The laws against murder, theft, rape, etc. have nothing to do with the 'right thing', they are illegal because they deprive the victim of their rights to life, property, etc. Forcing people to do anything against their will is a slippery slope. We're seeing that now with the proposed Marriage Amendment. It's the 'right thing' as far as those who support it are concerned. You can't try to force others to do what you want against their will and then be pissed when someone with a different idea forces you to do (or not do) something against your will. The government should not have the power to coerce anyone into doing anything against their will. When they do, we end up with things like the Marriage Amendment, income tax, The Drug War, Jim Crow laws, the Civil War, should I go on? |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Feb 25, 2004 6:04:06 GMT -5
Well obviously there is the law and then there is justice and they dont always go hand in hand. I can see that we will never agree on this so we will have to agree to disagree. I do not feel that a little mom & pop company should be affected but I do believe that if a business receives federal money of any kind, it shouild be illegal for that company to discriminate. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Feb 25, 2004 8:24:20 GMT -5
Well obviously there is the law and then there is justice and they dont always go hand in hand. I can see that we will never agree on this so we will have to agree to disagree. I do not feel that a little mom & pop company should be affected but I do believe that if a business receives federal money of any kind, it shouild be illegal for that company to discriminate. Just my opinion. Agreed (to disagree, that is). For the record, under the current system I do agree that businesses that receive federal money should not be allowed to discriminate. However, I believe no businesses should receive federal money. The business of government is protecting the rights of it's citizens, not financially supporting businesses. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 25, 2004 18:04:50 GMT -5
Agreed (to disagree, that is). For the record, under the current system I do agree that businesses that receive federal money should not be allowed to discriminate. However, I believe no businesses should receive federal money. The business of government is protecting the rights of it's citizens, not financially supporting businesses. Agreed. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by Old TS of WV on Mar 1, 2004 23:19:23 GMT -5
Right there guys. No business should ever get government funding. Never.
One reason (which should be clear to almost all like-mind lib.) is because whatever your money (taxes) is being used for you won’t agree 100% with.
The issue of whether or not government fund should go to companies that discriminate is not even an issue IMO. I know that sounds mean but that’s how I feel.
|
|
