A few thoughts on rascism / affirmative action

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I don't owe jobs to anyone, why are my job-granting decisions to be scrutinized?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel you owe jobs in this example to under-qualified white supremacists instead of more qualified blacks due to their skin color alone, I guess that is your own personal choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just said (as did you) that I don't owe jobs to anyone. Trying to smear me as a supremacist is a poor attempt at ad hominem.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you admit the system you advocate is bogus and useless?

[/ QUOTE ]

I advocate hiring the best person for the job, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc. If you find that bogus or useless, then I don't know what else to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to your "The only thing expected of you is to not discriminate" statement. I'm still unclear on who is doing the expecting, and what business it is of theirs.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Trying to smear me as a supremacist is a poor attempt at ad hominem.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa, relax sweetheart. Nobody is smearing you as a supremacist, and it wasn't anywhere near an attempted ad hominem. Don't be so jumpy, hoss.

I don't know you from Adam, and have no prejudgements about your racial preferences....the under-qualified white supremacist vs more qualified black thing was from the direct theoretical example we were already discussing, and in no way am i trying to imply you as either one.

[ QUOTE ]

I was referring to your "The only thing expected of you is to not discriminate" statement. I'm still unclear on who is doing the expecting, and what business it is of theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the federal government doing the expecting, courtesy of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a few addendums since, as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I imagine it is their business since they have jurisdiction, and it is the law.

For what it's worth, I don't think it applies to small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, but I'm not sure on that. I know if definately applies to companies doing contractual business with the government, as well as the government itself.

It doesn't set quotas, and explicitly disallows reverse discrimination as well. It simply requires that no one be discriminated against on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be the federal government doing the expecting, courtesy of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a few addendums since, as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you support this legislation?

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine it is their business since they have jurisdiction, and it is the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, it's the law, so it must be justified. There could never be an unjust law, the law is the law!

Again, I ask:

Are there to be punishments for those who don't have black friends? Or those who don't shop at a black-owned grocery store (and by this, I'm asking for a normative opinion, not a descriptive statement of what the current imposed law says about the matter)?

If I don't owe jobs to anyone, why are my job-granting decisions to be scrutinized?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you support this legislation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do I support the Civil Rights Act? Sure, I agree with it.

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, it's the law, so it must be justified. There could never be an unjust law, the law is the law!


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, there can exist unjust laws, but I hardly think this is one of them.

Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act is an unjust law?

[ QUOTE ]

Are there to be punishments for those who don't have black friends? Or those who don't shop at a black-owned grocery store (and by this, I'm asking for a normative opinion, not a descriptive statement of what the current imposed law says about the matter)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be ridiculous. Title VII only covers discrimination in employment. It has nothing to do with how you choose your friends, or where you buy your groceries. Of course there shouldn't be any punishment in this instance.

[ QUOTE ]

If I don't owe jobs to anyone, why are my job-granting decisions to be scrutinized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your job-granting decisions may be scrutinized because it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of color, creed, gender, etc.

It's not because you owe anyone a job, it's because you owe everyone equal opportunity without discrimination.

Surely, you don't have an issue with giving everyone an equal opportunity?

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Your job-granting decisions may be scrutinized because it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of color, creed, gender, etc.

It's not because you owe anyone a job, it's because you owe everyone equal opportunity without discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, as an employer, am I prevented by law from testing for general intelligence and basing my hiring decisions in part on the test results?

Turns out that only the US armed forces has this right.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Your job-granting decisions may be scrutinized because it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of color, creed, gender, etc.

It's not because you owe anyone a job, it's because you owe everyone equal opportunity without discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean I should sue since I was turned down for an applicant as a Borgata waitress?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Why, as an employer, am I prevented by law from testing for general intelligence and basing my hiring decisions in part on the test results?


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not familiar with any law that prevents you from doing so...in fact, I know of quite a few large employers who administer written exams as part of their hiring process.

Please elaborate.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you support this legislation?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do I support the Civil Rights Act? Sure, I agree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you've admitted that it's ineffective.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act is an unjust law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be ridiculous. Title VII only covers discrimination in employment. It has nothing to do with how you choose your friends, or where you buy your groceries. Of course there shouldn't be any punishment in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking about what the actual law says. I'm asking if you think those situations should be similarly governed. If you support interfering with decisions to buy labor, why would you not support interfering with decisions to buy hotdogs? If you support interfering with decisions to associate with people, why would you not support interfering with decisions to associate with people?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I don't owe jobs to anyone, why are my job-granting decisions to be scrutinized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your job-granting decisions may be scrutinized because it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of color, creed, gender, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. We all know what the law says. I'm asking WHY that law is justified. It may or may not be justified, but it most certainly is NOT justified *because* it's "the law".

[ QUOTE ]
It's not because you owe anyone a job, it's because you owe everyone equal opportunity without discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I owe them that?

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, you don't have an issue with giving everyone an equal opportunity?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hired my brother-in-law to install some hardwood floors in my house. I didn't give anyone else an opportunity. Have I sinned?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act is an unjust law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think the Civil Rights Act is an unjust law?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually think the Civil Rights Act is an unjust law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think the Civil Rights Act is an unjust law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because who I choose to associate with or trade with is nobody else's business.