Anti-discrimination laws

Post Reply New Topic

Look at it another way. Say you started a business and wanted to only hire other aspies. Not only because it's more difficult for aspies to get jobs at times and you want to help out, but also because you are more comfortable around them. That could very well be seen as discrimination against NT's and illegal. Should you be allowed to do that?

What about a minority owned business that wants to hire only minorities in order to give them a chance? That can be discrimination too.

A Pagan owned business that only hires Pagans can be discrimination. A Kosher deli that only hires Jews can be discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't just have to be white protestants. It can come in many forms. While white protestants are usually not discriminated against very often, it can happen, so before saying that small businesses shouldn't have the right to hire based on whatever their personal criteria is, think about other situations where it can happen.

If I were to open a metaphysical book store, which I'd like to do but never will, I'd prefer to hire only Pagans because Pagan themed books would be what I mainly sold, not an assortment of different types. Would I be discriminating? If I opened an Italian restaurant and wanted to hire only other Italians, would that be discrimination as well? Would it matter what my reasons were? Maybe at the book store I'd want my employees to be familiar with the philosophy behind the books, like the Christian bookstore is here in town and it would have nothing to do with any ill will toward other religions - which I have absolutely none of. Would hiring only other Italians for the Italian restaurant because I'd like it to have a certain ambiance be discrimination, even though most of the people I know, am related to and hang out with aren't at all Italian and I have no issue with non Italians? Or is it only discrimination in your opinion if I say "I'll hire everybody except this group"?

thinkinginpictures

@OliveOilMum- the problem is not discrimination as such, but rather irrational discrimination.

It's fine to discriminate against someone because they can't do the job, and this includes not knowing about pagan books or not getting on with the owner. It isn't fine to discriminate against someone irrationally.

I never said it was fine to do it. I said that everybody has a right to be an as*hole, and that small business owners should have the right to pick and choose who they hire and why. Even if it's ridiculous or just downright idiotic. Also, what might be irrational to you and me might be perfectly rational to the bigot. Lets say I've never met a girl named Sheila that I liked. Always had bad experiences with Sheila's (not true, but just an example) it would be totally irrational to not hire someone just because her name was Sheila but I might feel that it makes perfect sense.

If I owned a business and someone that I knew was a Klansman applied there, even if he could do the job, I wouldn't hire him because he's a Klansman. Is that rational or irrational? Lets say the job wouldn't involve a lot of public interaction and the guy in question never gets obnoxious or talks about his heinous beliefs to others, but I happen to know about them. Even knowing that he could do the job well and not cause problems, I still wouldn't hire him because of my own feelings about his personal beliefs.

I know someone who has a phobia about albinos. A phobia is an irrational fear, by definition. Would it be ok to not hire the albino guy because of that phobia?

What about that bill that's all over the news now, about allowing companies to refuse service to gay people? I wouldn't set foot in a place like that and most people I know wouldn't either, but if it's a small company, then I think they have the right to shoot themselves in the foot that way.

I honestly think people will learn to let go of bigotry much quicker if they learn it by the fact that they see the social and financial shunning they get from it rather than pretending to follow laws that say they can't act on their crazy ideas.

They are going to find a reason to not hire the person who they are discriminating against, or if they can't find one then they will find a reason to fire them or make the job suck so bad that they quit, so those laws don't really do as much good as people think they do. They work in big business, but not in small privately owned business. You have to change the way people think to make them work in those small businesses and laws don't do that. Learning by example is the best way, IMO to change how people think.

To OliveOilMom,

I certainly see no reason why an employer should not be able to choose whom to employ. As the Walrus points out concern is in the idea of, " irrational discrimination". The question is, should such irrationality be met with government pressure and legal force. I would say they should not. While such laws may benefit the individuals who are discriminated in the short run, it does little to address ( if not enforces) the feelings of prejudice and discrimination? Such laws also raise the question of true equality since the government discriminates against who the law should or should not protect. I would prefer a more natural method where such irrational individuals are prompted to rethink their opinion through public disgust and introspection. It just doesn't seem wise to force people to not be irrational by using force.

Whilst the "use the market" idea makes superficial sense, I don't think it will work. People have shown they are perfectly willing to buy products made in unethical conditions in order to save money (unfortunately I include myself in this. There have been some occasions where boycotts worked (Sikh bus drivers in Bristol?), but generally I think people would accept women or ethnic minorities being paid below minimum wage if it meant they saved £30 on their weekly grocery shop (I don't think I include myself in this - but I might do if it meant 70% off. Unfortunately, I think my morality is largely for sale).

Well, it definitely does not sound good if we are looking to politicians to determine our morals for us. Also, current laws are defiantly not helping foster positive sentiments.

Also, if you own a small business, I think you do have a right to choose who you hire and work with based on any criteria you want, no matter how distasteful that criteria may be to me, you, or anyone else. I honestly think we are past the era when people will say "Well I won't hire blacks, or gays, or Orientals, etc". I think that most people wouldn't base their hiring practices on something stupid like that but some would, and will continue to do so even though there are laws against it.

Let me give you another scenario here. Say you are hiring a housekeeper. Somebody to clean your house and watch your kid all day. She will be there 5 days a week, all day long. Should you have the right to exclude someone because of personal bigotry when you are hiring help or should you only have the right to hire someone based on qualities and values that you value, rather than exclude those you don't? If so, why should a small business be any different? I'm talking about some place that was started by a person who has worked there for decades and who hands on manages it every day. It means as much to them as their home does, so why shouldn't they have the right to exclude those who they dislike for whatever stupid reasons?

I know it sounds like I'm arguing for bigotry and discrimination here, but I'm not. I'm arguing for their right to be stupid. I'm for tolerance, very much so, but that also means that the rest of us have to tolerate the bigots up to a point as well. I don't have to like them, and I don't have to be quiet or polite about it, but I do feel that they have the right to hire or not hire based on whatever they want. Also, how would you prove that the reason they didn't hire someone was because of discrimination? There can be extreme cases, sure but for the most part it's not going to be proven.

Also, where do you draw the line about who you can and can't exclude and why? Should an atheist be allowed to refuse to hire religious people because he feels that they don't have a grip on reality? Should an Evangelical Christian be allowed to refuse to hire gay people or single people who are living together because he feels that it's a sin? Should someone be allowed to refuse to hire a Muslim because he believes they are possible terrorists? Should someone be allowed to refuse to hire someone who has a mental illness or a physical illness that he feels would interfere with the job eventually? Should someone be allowed to refuse to hire someone who has been in prison if the job is not one where any type of security clearance or bonding is needed because he doesn't trust anyone who has been in prison? Should a devout Catholic be able to refuse to hire someone who is divorced and remarried? Should an introverted aspie be allowed to refuse to hire an extroverted alpha male jock because he was bullied by those types in school and hates them? As you can see, there are all kinds of things people pick and choose about, and most of them don't make much sense.

So, what jobs should you have the right to discriminate in hiring - just ones where they work in your own home, or also in your small business?

What reasons are acceptable for refusing to hire someone - religious, cultural, etc? I'm seriously asking what specifics that those who are for antidiscrimination laws for small business owners believe are acceptable, and why.

While I don't think any form of discrimination is ok or even acceptable, I do think that everybody has a right to be wrong.

Absolutely true, so why make it easier to do so?



So an atheist such as myself is incapable of being knowledgable on the subject, despite the fact that I have studied the Bible backwards and forwards from the time I could first read?



This only would work in certaind geographic regions. Hate tends to concentrate. In a lot of areas, discrimination is highly encouraged. Look at a lot of the stories of human rights abuses in Arizona under the disguise of illegal immigration. Huge swaths of legal immigrants detained based on the fact that they did not have their papers on their person when they were pulled over for driving while latino. And this is done with the support of much of the population. I don't see how legalizing discrimination is going to help in any way.

I know you are not in favor of discrimination, but you do seem to condone it.

All of these cases are discrimination that should not be allowed. Laws that prohibit discrimination are not (and should not) have exceptions for small businesses.

While I understand the sentiment behind your proposals for acceptable discrimination, allowing them by law grants the population carte blanche to be as ruthless towards any group as they want to be.

Of course, the million dollar question is do such laws help or hurt feelings of prejudice? Hypothetically, lets suppose you owned and operated a fine book store that specialized in selling rare books. Then suppose a rabid bible thumper applied for a job to your store and later sued you for discrimination. Would this legal turn of events help or hurt your perception of other bible thumpers. More importantly, could this be seen as a justification for prejudice by others?

The thing with prejudice is that it rarely follows any type of predictable or rational pattern.

As for the rabid Bible thumper, if he is not the best qualified, he should not have the job. If he is the best qualified, he should get the job and legal action for discrimination would be fully justified. When you start making exceptions and exemptions to law, you see more and more opportunities for technically legal actions that subvert the intent of said law.

I fail to see how the individual actions of this theoretical Bible thumper would cause more prejudice than legally sanctioned widespread discrimination.

Yes, someone disliking someone for no reason is certainly irrational. However, when you throw in experiences such as legal battles suddenly you give that person more reason to hate. For example, I had a neighbor who was openly racist towards African Americans. When asked why he hated them he said because they threw bricks at him and spit on him when he was a fireman in D.C. For better or for worse people base their opinions on experiences. The last thing you want to do with an irrational prejudice is to give it a reason.