Conservatives: do you support Equal Opportunity for all?

nothing in the world, not even a law, is gonna make you a woman.

 

gender isn't sexual orientation.

duhhh

 

i surely wouldnt rent it to a homophobic, racist bigot

or a Communist, Antifa or Black Panther

 

That's discrimination. Hoisted on your own petard.

 

It is currently lawful for businesses owned by Indian reservations to openly discriminate in their hiring practices. You may get a job at a casino, but if they get an applicant that is an Indian, they can fire you for no other reason than to give that person your job. Should this continue to be allowed?

 

What almost everyone, Left and Right and in between, probably agrees on, is that laws should exist to allow humanity to flourish.
The problem is that there are many conflicting interests among people.

For instance, if I start a business, I may well want to hire my relatives ... especially if I am an immigrant and am comfortable with people who share my culture. On the other hand, this means that if I don't share your culture, you are 'discriminating' against me if I apply for a job.
And on the third hand, sometimes we need laws to smash down the powerful influence of custom and habit.

When I was a teenager in Houston, Blacks were simply not hired for many jobs. For instance, our main downtown department store, Foley's, had no Black employees. I doubt that there was a written rule about it ... they just had none. We picketed Foley's -- "we" being something called the "Progressive Youth Association", started by a local Black activist. "Don't shop where you can't work" was our slogan. Foley's finally gave in. It was the middle of the great Civil Rights
revolution, and Southern whites, at least in fringe areas like Texas, were beginning to change their attitudes.

Blacks had to sit in a special section in the movies -- so we had "stand-ins" to clog up the queue to buy tickets. We had sit-ins at Weingarten's Supermarket, which had special 'White' and 'Colored' restrooms and drinking fountains, and where Blacks were not served at the lunch counter.

Laws changed, but public attitudes changed too. I don't know if any of the situations we protested were affected by the Civil Rights Act of 1965, but even if they were, I believe the real change came about because public attitudes changed. I doubt that the capitalists who owned the movies, Foley's, Weingarten's, were themselves deeply prejudiced, or even gave a damn ... they were accommodating (white) public opinion. If their discrimination did become illegal, they probably welcomed the excuse to start hiring Blacks, and to get us protestors out of their hair.

Whether a small shop-owner should be able to hire, or even sell to, anyone he/she chooses is a trivial issue. Not worth increasing the ponderous weight of the law to deal with. No Muslim baker should be forced to bake a cake celebrating Israeli Independence Day.

You can argue that being a Muslim or a Christian is a choice, like being a Communist, a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian. But is it really a choice? It's a deep-seated part of your identity, something instilled into you from childhood. To try to distinguish between discriminating against someone because he or she is a Muslim -- okay, apparently, since it's like being a conservative, a choice -- and discriminating against them because they have dusky skin and speak with a Pushtoon accent -- is a bad idea.

There are so many serious social ills in the United States that require our attention. We should reserve bringing the power of the state -- the power to fine and imprison -- for the really serious problems. In general, the best change is that which takes place voluntarily, even if slowly. People stop refusing to hire Blacks because they begin to think it's wrong, or at least to think that most other decent people think it's wrong. This is a trend that is now world-wide, except among the most backward, benighted pockets of humanity. Trying to force decent behavior, or someone's idea of decent behavior, via the power of the state, in my opinion, is now actually retrograde step.

 

If an employer is posting “cruel jokes” that is on them for not being a professional organization. It could absolutely be assumed that the individual was not hired because of their status — just as it would be assumed if that employer had made anti-religious remarks and refused to hire a Christian.

Jobs are not going to be relocated because of having to conform to non-discrimination ordinances, that’s simply absurd. They relocate because of profits and shareholder results.

Y’all all act like gay people would be the only group that is protected but there are numerous groups that have similar protections. Forced quotas are a bad thing for everyone, saying you cannot fire someo

 

In other words, turning matters of free speech into evidence of a crime we don't even know happened.

That's why I oppose these laws. They effectively criminalize free speech without openly saying so.

 

You raise important points. I grew up in part under segregation when the local black people sat in the balcony at the movie theater. I remember as a kid how jealous I was of them and how unfair that I couldn't sit in the balcony because I was not black. But the reason didn't occur to me. Racism just wasn't in my wheelhouse of anything I even thought about. It didn't occur to me that the black kids going to their own school was anything unusual. But at some time, before the law required them to, our little oil patch town determined that busing the black kids 20 miles to the nearest 'black' school was silly when we had plenty of room in the local schools. And while they were at it, they just desegregated everything. I finally got to sit in the balcony at the theater.

And when we all started bringing our new black friends home from school, our southern raised parents, raised and conditioned to strict segregation, swallowed hard but accepted those black kids coming through the front door instead of the back door, and welcomed them at the dinner table and before long it all seemed perfectly normal. That is the way culture changes without spite, hatefulness, riots, and residual resentment.

So far as discrimination in business is concerned, IMO the shop keeper or serviceman should graciously and without malice serve ALL who come in to buy the products or services he/she normally offers for sale. But nobody, black, white, or any other race/ethnicity/religion or whatever should have to participate in an EVENT or CAUSE he/she cannot support or does not wish to participate in for any reason.

The strongly pro life Christian should not have to decorate cupcakes with the logo of the pro choice convention in town any more than the pro choice activist should have to decorate cupcakes for the anti-abortion rally. The Jew should not have to put swaztikas on cupcakes for the pro Nazi meeting. The gay man should not have to cater the event opposing homosexuality.

Nobody should have to cater or provide any other services for an event held by a group like the Westboro Baptist Church if they choose not to.

Sell the products/service you choose to have for sale to all without discriminating against anybody. But nobody should have to make a product or provide a service they do not want to provide or participate or attend or be present at any venue they do not wish to participate in. The local KKK guy can come in and buy six dozen chocolate cupcakes that you normally have to sell. But if he wants you to put a KKK on those cupcakes, you should not be required to do that.

Such discrimination should be the right of every American.

 

Was the business owner arrested and convicted of a crime? No, of course not, he was protected by the first amendment. You can say whatever you want publicly in most cases and not be charged criminally, however civil and business laws are a different matter.

 

LMAO I don't think you know much about the American justice system.

I actually pity you; you are so mis-guided in your perceptions about our legal system. Try starting over, reading up on how the system operates, etc. Then come back and we can have some dialogue on this thread.

 

I don't think you do. Courts will say "The First Amendment does not apply here" all the time.

Plus it's not so obvious to prove that is the reason why the court or jury ruled against you. The judge and jury don't have to explain their reasons.

 

It is you who are woefully misguided. Try reading some of the threads about court cases in the Law & Justice section.

Courts DO NOT always follow the law, and they turn the law into what they think it is.

You want to hand them a blank slate that would allow employers to be punished for free speech.

We should eliminate all laws that allow employers to be punished for "intent" or doing something perfectly routine when it's for certain "reasons".

 

Tell you what, you go ahead and believe what you want to believe and I'll go ahead and believe what I want to believe and we'll both be happy.

 

Just don't push your laws on employers.

Exposing them to liability affects us all.

No stupid laws that have vague undefined standards for "evidence".

 

A "magaster" is a Trump supporter I take it.

It sounds to me like you approve of limiting access and refusing to hire according to a political litmus test.

 

They are not my laws, they are your laws.

 

I support equal opportunity for all. What I don't support is turning this into a Communist Witch Hunt terrorizing employers. Which is what the plan of those on the Progressive side seems to be.

You can't punish employers for "intent" without, either a mind-reader machine (doesn't exist), or doing that.

This plan is a trojan horse.

 

Like Facebook, Twitter, and other tech giants do against those with the wrong politics? If they can, then everyone should be able to.

 

Who is going to punish intent?

 

The judge and jury.

 

Which judge and jury? And by what means can they punish intent?

 

https://brasspills.com/pregnant-tra...-hospital-doesnt-realize-he-is-really-female/

 

You are still free to say whatever you want. No one is imprisoning you for doing so.

It just might make you wallet thinner though. Or are you arguing for freedom of repercussions?

 

You are being so stupid here it is like you are trolling.

What part of forcing the business to pay $500,000 and possibly bankrupting them or shutting them down didn't you get?
The law would do this because they said something.