Should a religious employer be exempt from anti-discrimination laws?

Government is very good at social engineering. Sometimes that is bad like Hitler. Sometime it is good like ending Jim crow and segregation.

 

That is kind of like saying that my heel is sometimes good at pain relief, like when I take it off of your toe, isn't it? Government created Jim Crow laws in the first place.

 

It is still social engineering.

 

Your arrogance of your tone is actually a worry.

And then you scream 'ad hom' lest someone find your tone less than lending itself to civil discourse.

At no time have I 'avoided building an arguement'.

I have stated my position with great clarity.

Do you wish me to go find the post in which that is so?

Or will do you deny that they exist, even when I do put them up?

You would do better to pay mind and work to your own failing position, one which, to date, after all these pages, still amounts to little more than you mouthing the same repititive mantra, about effectively handing total freedom to corporations and companies to employ 'who they like'. The logic being that they can refuse to employ those that they don't 'like'.

And that this 'dislike' could be based on a racial or religous motive.

Or a gender motive, or a sexual one.

My position is that I do not live in, nor do I want to live in a society such as that.

There is no pubic outcry for this, none.

It does not take a genius to figure out why this may be.

Jack

 

But then you speak of people as if they are unthinking commodities.

And that is part of the problem.

People are not unthinking commodities, to be treated as objects by an employer.

Nor do the rights of corporations usurp the rights of equal opportunity, which is enshrined in law, and for good reason.

They already have too many rights, on too many levels.

Last thing I would want to do is given them more of a free hand!

 

You have to wonder what would happen if these people got their utopia, such as it appears to be.

This may involve.

1) The forced repatriation of Mexicans, Latino's, and any others not deemed to be 'true Americans'.

2) The entire abolition of any immigration.

3) The introduction of the teaching of 'creationism', alongside hard science, in schools across the country.

4) The forced expulsion of Muslims in American, just to be on the safe side.

5) The total abolition of any welfare state or safety net. Everyone on welfare is a criminal and a drug addict, as they will have you think. If in doubt as to what the replacement policy should be, follow the lead of John Hagee.

6) Total freedom to abuse people handed over to employers. They could do what they want, to who they want, and when they want. Obviously some restrictions would remain, but they would also eventually be seen as a 'attack on employers', and finally removed.

7) The creation of a new state of slave labour. This could be made up of the drug addict welfare criminals, that all welfare claimaints are, or perhaps it could consist of those that cannot get normal paid work, since companies no longer employ anyone but white Ameicans, who are right wing religous nuts. So, in return for a 80 hour week, they can sleep in a barn, and have a bit of bread every day.

Feck, HOW much are the US spending on silly things like education to the poor? That has to stop. Only the people with most bits of paper need an education. The rest must be left stupid, to motivate them in the future. That will work brilliant, that will.

There.

What kind of society is that, going into the 21st century?

Jack

 

I'm going to take this crazy post of yours seriously.
Only the illegals need to be exported. Legal immigrants are Americans and deserve a fair shake at our markets and benefits.

No Republican advocates 0 immigration. I myself want to limit immigration to only those people who will help make our country greater. ie those who fill jobs that no citizen is able (we have plenty of unemployed people who can mow grass and pick oranges so we don't need immigrants (more on the bottom) cluttering those jobs up), and those who will create jobs. Pass the proper criteria and you get a green card. Prove to be a worthless bottom of the barrel just wanting to scope out our free welfare benefits we don't want you.

How about making it so that it's not illegal to be a christian and to tell people your a christian. How about giving christian equal rights and protections so they may say I love God at a commencement meeting if they want. It's called free speech.

So me a link to a reputable news sources that shows a Republican candidate or Congressman actually advocates this. ie your talking (*)(*)(*)(*).

Most republicans are not Ron Paul supporters so using arguments that only a Ron Paul supporter would support is what they say a, strawman.

Are we free or not? If we are to be free we can't lose our freedom just because we are a business owner because that wouldn't be fair. We should be free to associate with whom we want to and not with those we don't want to and let us pay the consequences of our own decisions while doing so..

Sorry I don't know how to answer the loony (*)(*)(*)(*) spouted after point 7. Maybe a Ron Paul supporter would agree with those points but most Republicans wouldn't be for them either.

 

I have no interest or real knowledge in Ron Paul.

Your sig tells me all I need to know about how your mind works, that said.

 

My assumption that an individual is unqualified because they are a minority? Please, show me where I made such an assumption.

Let me reiterate my problem with anti-discrimination laws, unqualified individuals can effectively cry discrimination forcing employers to treat the protected classes such as minorities differently. This creates a double standard of conduct.

 

No, not really.

 

Anti-discrimination laws are anti-freedom. Most people don't even know what discrimination is. If I couldn't discriminate between two glasses of clear liquid, one being water and the other being bleach, I would likely die.

 

You don't understand the definition of what discrimination is either.

Also, discrimination is anti freedom. Anti discrimination laws have made us all more free not less.

 

Discrimination is the ability to tell the difference between subjects.

Anti-discrimination laws have made us all slaves to the state.

 

You missed one

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.



a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

 

You describe prejudice or bigotry, not discrimination.

 

That isn't my description, but from the dictionary under discrimination.

 

Misguided. There are no UNQUALIFIED people successfully crying discrimination. They are UNQUALIFIED.

 

Words are often manipulated to benefit authority... like "welfare" and "marriage."

 

Yeah you manipulate words to try and make discrimination against people ok again. I call BS. We are much better off since there are no more white only or black only bathrooms and businesses.

 

No. Discrimination laws apply to all, not randoms off shoots of groups.

They are there for a reason. Religion does not trump that reason.

 

But they are and it works.

 

By that definition, anti-discrimination laws would also be misnamed and they're actually anti-prejudice laws. This all seems to boil down to you inventing an argument about semantics when everyone was perfectly clear on what is being discussed.

 

I think you are confusing under qualified with unqualified. Unqualified people never get through the door for the interview, since getting through the door for the interview is a qualification for the job and they are UNQUALIFIED.

 

In theory, I agree. Legally, it's not that simple.

If you fire someone for being gay, regardless of what your religion says, you could be sued for it. It's not that different from refusing to hire someone for being black. Laws against discrimination include religion and sexual orientation.

The first thing that matters in a firing is what local labor laws apply. Right to work states allow employers a lot more flexibility in firings than states that aren't in this group. In a right to work state, you don't even have to state a reason for the firing. However, if there's any possibility of the ex-employee assuming that you fired them out of discrimination, it's best for you to have some evidence of work-related reasons for the firing.

Proving discrimination in hiring or firing is somewhat difficult, but it's certainly not out of the question. So, prejudiced employers have to be discrete and cautious in their behavior lest they face and possibly lose a lawsuit.

 

no, they should be called anti-freedom laws because they take away our freedom of making choices.