Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Flaws of Anti-Discrimination Laws

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:25:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Flaws of Anti-Discrimination Laws

1. They do not promote equality, only division. While things like sex and race are not controlled, things like religion, welfare status, and certain handicaps are. And sexual orientation is protected, but not really, as I doubt a pedophile would be covered.
Regardless, this creates a division to those other "classes" of folks that are discriminated against and are not protected, thus some are more equal than others.

2. They are redundant. The government has restrictions in its actions that private citizens do not. This is evident when the government allows deplorable people like the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church permits for parades or gatherings. So, these laws are wholly unnecessary when applied to government action.

3. They do not work. Recent studies have shown that those with "black names" like Tequisha Washington are less likely to be given an interview than those with less ethnic names, even though the resume is the exact same. Further evidence is The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which merely extended the statute of limitations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This implies that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has failed to ensure that women are paid the same as men. There are also ways around these laws, for example, using temp agencies or simply lying.

4. They create discrimination via resentment.
i. From the employer's/service provider's standpoint, they have to document everything and ensure they have a damn good reason (i.e. a separate standard) to terminate/punish/refuse service. Even if the reason for termination is objectively adequate, the employer can still be sued. I have seen this personally, as I was named in the lawsuit (not as a defendant). In this case, not only was the plaintiff worthless as an employee, but he had no car. He was let go, and subsequently sued for unlawful termination. At one point, the legal fees to fight this were $20K, over a man who made, maybe, $100/week at best. (principle guided the defense, not pragmatism) Another example was OJ Simpson sued a restaurateur for refusing service, on account he was black. The restaurateur said it was because OJ is a murderer. Odd, how one reason is illegal and not the other (see: equality).
This is a substantial risk, both monetarily and public image, and the result is an aversion to said risk. This, ironically, results in further discrimination by either avoiding the situation all together, or conducting a deeper background check than otherwise would be conducted (e.g. checking public records for previous lawsuits).
ii. From the employee's standpoint, they have to deal with incompetence due to the employer's refusal to act. In the example above, everyone knew the lawsuit would happen early on in his employ, and he was with the company for over two years, with his incompetence and us being forced to walk on eggshells (he also called the police for assault, vandalism, and called DOL for wage theft). Another example, is a man kept his job even though he would tamper with the time off request by crossing off requests (of a specific person), make inappropriate comments of office documents (e.g. "shut up you fat b!tch"), was incredibly lazy, and was constantly late (up to two hours), had excessive breaks, and left early before the work was done. What was the result? Transfer the woman being harassed to a different department. Why did he keep his job? Fear of a lawsuit. This fear brings down morale and can cause open resentment towards employees, including violence, singling out or passive aggression (e.g. cold shoulder).
iii. Employees are human, and they generally have a self-serving bias, so if a "worse" employee gets the promotion, it will be seen by some as a matter of other factors, like race, sex, etc. that cost them a promotion. In some cases, this is true (especially if the company values diversity), but often it is merely a convenient excuse. Regardless of the reason, this taints people's view of someone in particular, and is applied to the general population by some. (see: hate against Mexicans because "they took our jobs"), while the charge of favoritism by the boss can only be applied to the individual.
None of these factors are good for a business climate.

One of the biggest criticisms about abolishing or limiting Anti-Discrimination Laws is that laws like AK SB 202, which provide a universal standard for business regulations by only allowing anti-discrimination laws based on state-level criteria, promote discrimination. If this is true, then allowing racist groups a parade on Main St is promoting racism, but, for some reason, we do not hold the government to that standard, thus, this is an illogical argument.

Another criticism is that people have a right to employment or services. This falls flat given (1) and (2) above. If it is a right, then it applies to EVERYONE, and if it applies to EVERYONE, there is no need for a protected class.
Further, since the lawsuit can force an association upon another (re-hire) or force a service to be provided, this violates the rights of the business owner. If I want to fire you, and my reason is not documented or "good enough", and a court says it is likely due to discrimination of a protected class, then I am forced to associate with you, give you my assets (pay), and am not allowed to fire you until I have "enough" evidence that supports this action.

Another criticism is that people should not be penalized for being X. While that is true, is it fair to force thousands of dollars in legal fees or blackmail because X is forcing you to defend your action (or inaction) in a court of law? If I lose the lawsuit, I am then forced to do something against my will only because the court believes that my reasoning was not good enough, while the "victim" is never under any obligation to patron/be employed by me.
Regardless of the legality or validity of the accusation, there is blow-back at the public level (potential protests, boycotts).

Anti-discrimination laws are nothing more than policing thought. An otherwise legal act (or inaction) is somehow illegal due to the perceived illegitimacy of a perceived slight against only certain people by other certain people of the said act.

An aside: if you have a right to my services, do I have a right to your patronage? Is it not equally discriminatory for a racist white man to boycott a black man's diner on account he is black? Is the black restaurateur not negatively affected by this? After all, it is not slander or otherwise illegal for me to state truths about you in order to get people to stop buying from you (e.g. business owner beats his wife). Why can the would-be patron voluntarily associate with me, but the owner has forced association?
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 11:29:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I could address most of your many points while adding that no laws are perfect. Murder is highly illegal yet murders still happen in shocking numbers, for example.

But I would rather start from a different angle. There are different motivations for being against these sorts of laws. One group will claim that discrimination is not common enough to warrant them. Another will say that a free society should be free to discriminate-- thing is, people positing either of these views are NEVER a member of the groups being discriminated against, so either their awareness or purity of motives are highly suspect, IMO.

Then there are those such as yourself: you believe that discrimination is happening to a significant extent, you believe that it should be discouraged, yet you still oppose such laws. So, my question to you is: what do you believe should be done instead to address the issue?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:20:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 11:29:33 AM, Fly wrote:
I could address most of your many points while adding that no laws are perfect. Murder is highly illegal yet murders still happen in shocking numbers, for example.
True, but the issue here is cost analysis. Promoting inequality and discrimination is the antithesis of this legislation, and since the law is primarily a vehicle to control thought/morals, it ought be avoided unless necessary (by private individuals, not government).

But I would rather start from a different angle. There are different motivations for being against these sorts of laws. One group will claim that discrimination is not common enough to warrant them. Another will say that a free society should be free to discriminate-- thing is, people positing either of these views are NEVER a member of the groups being discriminated against, so either their awareness or purity of motives are highly suspect, IMO.
Not that I am offended, but I assure you, I have seen my fair share of discrimination towards me. I doubt the reasons for it will ever be addressed, save for one, but that movement is hardly making headway.

Then there are those such as yourself: you believe that discrimination is happening to a significant extent, you believe that it should be discouraged, yet you still oppose such laws. So, my question to you is: what do you believe should be done instead to address the issue?
First, I am not sure it is happening at a significant extent. There are so many false positives that it is hard to say. And, if there are false positives, one can only assume there are unheard of cases as well.

The answer to your question is mutli-faceted.
What should the law do? Ensure the law is not discriminating wontingly. Every law discriminates, but there must be valid reasons for laws' existence, and securing white power is not one of them. This must be challenged every time.

What should society do? Shame them. Boycott them. Fire them. Compete with them. Drive them out of business. Basically the same thing you do to any bigot - fvck em.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing businesses en masse would discriminate if possible. It is a PR nightmare if they are large enough, and why turn away business or good workers? Even racist basketball owners still hire black men to play the game....and make them money. As far as denying service, outside of the Jim Crow South (where government discriminated and segregated) and Christians having issues with gays (specifically marriages or franchisees), it appears to be largely unheard of, and, again, some can be explained by false positives.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:46:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:20:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 11:29:33 AM, Fly wrote:
I could address most of your many points while adding that no laws are perfect. Murder is highly illegal yet murders still happen in shocking numbers, for example.
True, but the issue here is cost analysis. Promoting inequality and discrimination is the antithesis of this legislation, and since the law is primarily a vehicle to control thought/morals, it ought be avoided unless necessary (by private individuals, not government).

But I would rather start from a different angle. There are different motivations for being against these sorts of laws. One group will claim that discrimination is not common enough to warrant them. Another will say that a free society should be free to discriminate-- thing is, people positing either of these views are NEVER a member of the groups being discriminated against, so either their awareness or purity of motives are highly suspect, IMO.
Not that I am offended, but I assure you, I have seen my fair share of discrimination towards me. I doubt the reasons for it will ever be addressed, save for one, but that movement is hardly making headway.

Then there are those such as yourself: you believe that discrimination is happening to a significant extent, you believe that it should be discouraged, yet you still oppose such laws. So, my question to you is: what do you believe should be done instead to address the issue?
First, I am not sure it is happening at a significant extent. There are so many false positives that it is hard to say. And, if there are false positives, one can only assume there are unheard of cases as well.

The answer to your question is mutli-faceted.
What should the law do? Ensure the law is not discriminating wontingly. Every law discriminates, but there must be valid reasons for laws' existence, and securing white power is not one of them. This must be challenged every time.

What should society do? Shame them. Boycott them. Fire them. Compete with them. Drive them out of business. Basically the same thing you do to any bigot - fvck em.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing businesses en masse would discriminate if possible. It is a PR nightmare if they are large enough, and why turn away business or good workers? Even racist basketball owners still hire black men to play the game....and make them money. As far as denying service, outside of the Jim Crow South (where government discriminated and segregated) and Christians having issues with gays (specifically marriages or franchisees), it appears to be largely unheard of, and, again, some can be explained by false positives.

Are you really that naive? To what do you attribute the rash of state laws to hinder voting, and to actually LEGALIZE discrimination against certain groups? Do you REALLY think your personal beliefs / bias give you the right to discriminate against others in the public sector? Do you believe in equality under secular law? Have YOU ever felt discriminated against under the law?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 8:56:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:46:35 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

Are you really that naive? To what do you attribute the rash of state laws to hinder voting, and to actually LEGALIZE discrimination against certain groups?
Is the former really discrimination? Do people really need to vote 45 days before the election, you know, before a single presidential debate?
The latter is not discrimination, per se, as it just does back to remaining silent on the issue. Well, I suppose I don't know what you are talking about specifically. Regardless, if you read the OP, then you know the LAW should not discriminate, so I'm not sure your point.
The law says you can't silence a racist. But in my house, if you are a racist, you can leave. What the government cannot do is not what I cannot do.

Do you REALLY think your personal beliefs / bias give you the right to discriminate against others in the public sector?
My business is not the public sector.
In the private sector, yes, I do believe I can. Must I invite the whole neighborhood to dinner, or can I just invite those I like?

Do you believe in equality under secular law?
I don't understand the question.

Have YOU ever felt discriminated against under the law?
Every. Fvcking. Day.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:09:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:20:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 11:29:33 AM, Fly wrote:
I could address most of your many points while adding that no laws are perfect. Murder is highly illegal yet murders still happen in shocking numbers, for example.
True, but the issue here is cost analysis. Promoting inequality and discrimination is the antithesis of this legislation, and since the law is primarily a vehicle to control thought/morals, it ought be avoided unless necessary (by private individuals, not government).

But I would rather start from a different angle. There are different motivations for being against these sorts of laws. One group will claim that discrimination is not common enough to warrant them. Another will say that a free society should be free to discriminate-- thing is, people positing either of these views are NEVER a member of the groups being discriminated against, so either their awareness or purity of motives are highly suspect, IMO.
Not that I am offended, but I assure you, I have seen my fair share of discrimination towards me. I doubt the reasons for it will ever be addressed, save for one, but that movement is hardly making headway.

Then there are those such as yourself: you believe that discrimination is happening to a significant extent, you believe that it should be discouraged, yet you still oppose such laws. So, my question to you is: what do you believe should be done instead to address the issue?
First, I am not sure it is happening at a significant extent. There are so many false positives that it is hard to say. And, if there are false positives, one can only assume there are unheard of cases as well.

The answer to your question is mutli-faceted.
What should the law do? Ensure the law is not discriminating wontingly. Every law discriminates, but there must be valid reasons for laws' existence, and securing white power is not one of them. This must be challenged every time.

What should society do? Shame them. Boycott them. Fire them. Compete with them. Drive them out of business. Basically the same thing you do to any bigot - fvck em.

That would be great, except that anti-discrimination laws are a response to "tyranny of the majority." The majority cannot be expected to discourage the tyranny that it is putting upon itself to impose upon the minority.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing businesses en masse would discriminate if possible. It is a PR nightmare if they are large enough, and why turn away business or good workers? Even racist basketball owners still hire black men to play the game....and make them money. As far as denying service, outside of the Jim Crow South (where government discriminated and segregated) and Christians having issues with gays (specifically marriages or franchisees), it appears to be largely unheard of, and, again, some can be explained by false positives.

Not that it is a business per se, but one can find no greater counterexample to your incredulity than the US military-- prior to the law that forced it to allow open homosexuals into its ranks.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:21:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:09:17 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:20:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 11:29:33 AM, Fly wrote:
I could address most of your many points while adding that no laws are perfect. Murder is highly illegal yet murders still happen in shocking numbers, for example.
True, but the issue here is cost analysis. Promoting inequality and discrimination is the antithesis of this legislation, and since the law is primarily a vehicle to control thought/morals, it ought be avoided unless necessary (by private individuals, not government).

But I would rather start from a different angle. There are different motivations for being against these sorts of laws. One group will claim that discrimination is not common enough to warrant them. Another will say that a free society should be free to discriminate-- thing is, people positing either of these views are NEVER a member of the groups being discriminated against, so either their awareness or purity of motives are highly suspect, IMO.
Not that I am offended, but I assure you, I have seen my fair share of discrimination towards me. I doubt the reasons for it will ever be addressed, save for one, but that movement is hardly making headway.

Then there are those such as yourself: you believe that discrimination is happening to a significant extent, you believe that it should be discouraged, yet you still oppose such laws. So, my question to you is: what do you believe should be done instead to address the issue?
First, I am not sure it is happening at a significant extent. There are so many false positives that it is hard to say. And, if there are false positives, one can only assume there are unheard of cases as well.

The answer to your question is mutli-faceted.
What should the law do? Ensure the law is not discriminating wontingly. Every law discriminates, but there must be valid reasons for laws' existence, and securing white power is not one of them. This must be challenged every time.

What should society do? Shame them. Boycott them. Fire them. Compete with them. Drive them out of business. Basically the same thing you do to any bigot - fvck em.

That would be great, except that anti-discrimination laws are a response to "tyranny of the majority." The majority cannot be expected to discourage the tyranny that it is putting upon itself to impose upon the minority.
I disagree.
How did any such law ever come into existence if not for the majority to realize the error of its ways? It's not like women voted themselves the right to vote.
I see no reason why the majority cannot be split on issues, and do you think the majority of American would openly discriminate if they could?

Frankly, I have a hard time believing businesses en masse would discriminate if possible. It is a PR nightmare if they are large enough, and why turn away business or good workers? Even racist basketball owners still hire black men to play the game....and make them money. As far as denying service, outside of the Jim Crow South (where government discriminated and segregated) and Christians having issues with gays (specifically marriages or franchisees), it appears to be largely unheard of, and, again, some can be explained by false positives.

Not that it is a business per se, but one can find no greater counterexample to your incredulity than the US military-- prior to the law that forced it to allow open homosexuals into its ranks.

First, the military is government, so they shouldn't be discriminating.
Second, banning open homosexuals in the military, did have legitimate reasons. If the troop cannot function as a unit, the result can literally be deadly (HIV is also a concern, but if HIV is a discharge, it is largely irrelevant). Same with segregation. Before there was acceptance, it actually would have been a bad idea, IMO. After all, isn't the military generally considered stupid and poor, so they are likely to be the most bigoted, and the last to adopt social change?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:34:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 8:56:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:46:35 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

Are you really that naive? To what do you attribute the rash of state laws to hinder voting, and to actually LEGALIZE discrimination against certain groups?
Is the former really discrimination? Do people really need to vote 45 days before the election, you know, before a single presidential debate?
The latter is not discrimination, per se, as it just does back to remaining silent on the issue. Well, I suppose I don't know what you are talking about specifically. Regardless, if you read the OP, then you know the LAW should not discriminate,

I totally agree. The law should not discriminate. Yet on this thread, and several others, you expound the belief that you should be able to discriminate against whoever you please!!

Am I missing something or are you advocating discrimination based on your personal beliefs. Are YOU being denied the right to early voting? Are ANY of your rights being diminished IN ANY WAY by someone else having this right to vote early?

so I'm not sure your point.
The law says you can't silence a racist. But in my house, if you are a racist, you can leave. What the government cannot do is not what I cannot do.

Do you REALLY think your personal beliefs / bias give you the right to discriminate against others in the public sector?

My business is not the public sector.

Well, I don't know what you business IS!!! Do you own some sort of private club that excludes the general public?

In the private sector, yes, I do believe I can. Must I invite the whole neighborhood to dinner, or can I just invite those I like?

Are you talking about in your private home or a restaurant you own?


Do you believe in equality under secular law?

I don't understand the question.

What part do you not understand?

Have YOU ever felt discriminated against under the law?

Every. Fvcking. Day.

And exactly how?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:43:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:34:01 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:56:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:46:35 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

Are you really that naive? To what do you attribute the rash of state laws to hinder voting, and to actually LEGALIZE discrimination against certain groups?
Is the former really discrimination? Do people really need to vote 45 days before the election, you know, before a single presidential debate?
The latter is not discrimination, per se, as it just does back to remaining silent on the issue. Well, I suppose I don't know what you are talking about specifically. Regardless, if you read the OP, then you know the LAW should not discriminate,

I totally agree. The law should not discriminate. Yet on this thread, and several others, you expound the belief that you should be able to discriminate against whoever you please!!
I am not Judge Dredd; I am not the law.
I can tell an X man to get out of my house simply because he is X. The government cannot.

Am I missing something or are you advocating discrimination based on your personal beliefs.
As a result of my beliefs, yes, I do advocate this.

Are YOU being denied the right to early voting? Are ANY of your rights being diminished IN ANY WAY by someone else having this right to vote early?
I was not aware that:
1. Voting was a right.
2. Early voting = voting

Neither are true.
If 1 is true, then minors should be able to vote. In fact, the voting age was 21 and 25 at different times.
If 2 is true, then I should be able to vote five months early, right?




so I'm not sure your point.
The law says you can't silence a racist. But in my house, if you are a racist, you can leave. What the government cannot do is not what I cannot do.

Do you REALLY think your personal beliefs / bias give you the right to discriminate against others in the public sector?


My business is not the public sector.

Well, I don't know what you business IS!!! Do you own some sort of private club that excludes the general public?
I do not own a business. It is just easier to say "I" and "you" for simplicity and brevity.
Why does it matter what the business is? Why can a private club discriminate?


In the private sector, yes, I do believe I can. Must I invite the whole neighborhood to dinner, or can I just invite those I like?

Are you talking about in your private home or a restaurant you own?
Both.



Do you believe in equality under secular law?

I don't understand the question.

What part do you not understand?
The words together.

Have YOU ever felt discriminated against under the law?


Every. Fvcking. Day.

And exactly how?
I do not have the right to bear arms.
I do not have the right to appear on a jury.
For years, I did not have the right to vote.

The reason for this discrimination is also why I am denied employment.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:09:17 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:20:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 11:29:33 AM, Fly wrote:
I could address most of your many points while adding that no laws are perfect. Murder is highly illegal yet murders still happen in shocking numbers, for example.
True, but the issue here is cost analysis. Promoting inequality and discrimination is the antithesis of this legislation, and since the law is primarily a vehicle to control thought/morals, it ought be avoided unless necessary (by private individuals, not government).

But I would rather start from a different angle. There are different motivations for being against these sorts of laws. One group will claim that discrimination is not common enough to warrant them. Another will say that a free society should be free to discriminate-- thing is, people positing either of these views are NEVER a member of the groups being discriminated against, so either their awareness or purity of motives are highly suspect, IMO.
Not that I am offended, but I assure you, I have seen my fair share of discrimination towards me. I doubt the reasons for it will ever be addressed, save for one, but that movement is hardly making headway.

Then there are those such as yourself: you believe that discrimination is happening to a significant extent, you believe that it should be discouraged, yet you still oppose such laws. So, my question to you is: what do you believe should be done instead to address the issue?
First, I am not sure it is happening at a significant extent. There are so many false positives that it is hard to say. And, if there are false positives, one can only assume there are unheard of cases as well.

The answer to your question is mutli-faceted.
What should the law do? Ensure the law is not discriminating wontingly. Every law discriminates, but there must be valid reasons for laws' existence, and securing white power is not one of them. This must be challenged every time.

What should society do? Shame them. Boycott them. Fire them. Compete with them. Drive them out of business. Basically the same thing you do to any bigot - fvck em.

That would be great, except that anti-discrimination laws are a response to "tyranny of the majority." The majority cannot be expected to discourage the tyranny that it is putting upon itself to impose upon the minority.
I disagree.
How did any such law ever come into existence if not for the majority to realize the error of its ways? It's not like women voted themselves the right to vote.
I see no reason why the majority cannot be split on issues, and do you think the majority of American would openly discriminate if they could?

There are many reasons we do not have legislation by referendum but rather a representative government. Sometimes, or even oftentimes legislators impose laws that are not highly popular with the majority. Or for the sake of expediency, I can just call it "tyranny of half the populace."

Frankly, I have a hard time believing businesses en masse would discriminate if possible. It is a PR nightmare if they are large enough, and why turn away business or good workers? Even racist basketball owners still hire black men to play the game....and make them money. As far as denying service, outside of the Jim Crow South (where government discriminated and segregated) and Christians having issues with gays (specifically marriages or franchisees), it appears to be largely unheard of, and, again, some can be explained by false positives.

Not that it is a business per se, but one can find no greater counterexample to your incredulity than the US military-- prior to the law that forced it to allow open homosexuals into its ranks.

First, the military is government, so they shouldn't be discriminating.

That was not central to my point. I was referring more to your "en masse" incredulity and the pointlessness in getting rid of good workers-- both of which the military has exhibited.

Second, banning open homosexuals in the military, did have legitimate reasons. If the troop cannot function as a unit, the result can literally be deadly (HIV is also a concern, but if HIV is a discharge, it is largely irrelevant). Same with segregation. Before there was acceptance, it actually would have been a bad idea, IMO. After all, isn't the military generally considered stupid and poor, so they are likely to be the most bigoted, and the last to adopt social change?

The military is a reflection on the society which it protects. It tends to accept and reject social trends in proportion to civilian society. When the military rejected homosexuals, so did the civilian sector.

My larger point is that society can certainly cause laws to change, but there are certain types of laws that can also cause society to change as well. It can be difficult to discern which leads and which lags sometimes. Considering US history, anti-discrimination laws are an example of laws causing societal change.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:43:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:34:01 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:56:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 8:46:35 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

Are you really that naive? To what do you attribute the rash of state laws to hinder voting, and to actually LEGALIZE discrimination against certain groups?
Is the former really discrimination? Do people really need to vote 45 days before the election, you know, before a single presidential debate?
The latter is not discrimination, per se, as it just does back to remaining silent on the issue. Well, I suppose I don't know what you are talking about specifically. Regardless, if you read the OP, then you know the LAW should not discriminate,

I totally agree. The law should not discriminate. Yet on this thread, and several others, you expound the belief that you should be able to discriminate against whoever you please!!
I am not Judge Dredd; I am not the law.
I can tell an X man to get out of my house simply because he is X. The government cannot.

Am I missing something or are you advocating discrimination based on your personal beliefs.
As a result of my beliefs, yes, I do advocate this.

Are YOU being denied the right to early voting? Are ANY of your rights being diminished IN ANY WAY by someone else having this right to vote early?
I was not aware that:
1. Voting was a right.
2. Early voting = voting

Neither are true.
If 1 is true, then minors should be able to vote. In fact, the voting age was 21 and 25 at different times.
If 2 is true, then I should be able to vote five months early, right?




so I'm not sure your point.
The law says you can't silence a racist. But in my house, if you are a racist, you can leave. What the government cannot do is not what I cannot do.

Do you REALLY think your personal beliefs / bias give you the right to discriminate against others in the public sector?


My business is not the public sector.

Well, I don't know what you business IS!!! Do you own some sort of private club that excludes the general public?
I do not own a business. It is just easier to say "I" and "you" for simplicity and brevity.
Why does it matter what the business is? Why can a private club discriminate?


In the private sector, yes, I do believe I can. Must I invite the whole neighborhood to dinner, or can I just invite those I like?

Are you talking about in your private home or a restaurant you own?
Both.



Do you believe in equality under secular law?

I don't understand the question.

What part do you not understand?
The words together.

Have YOU ever felt discriminated against under the law?


Every. Fvcking. Day.

And exactly how?
I do not have the right to bear arms.
I do not have the right to appear on a jury.
For years, I did not have the right to vote.

The reason for this discrimination is also why I am denied employment.

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:25:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:51:16 PM, Fly wrote:
I'll respond to you later, I'm going to bed.
I need to think when I deal with you LOL
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:34:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.

(sigh)
Who is blaming anyone for anything?
I am specifically stating that, yes, businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, as they currently do. I see no reason why this discrimination is okay, but not based on some other stupid, illogical, bigoted reason.

So, either be upset that ex-cons have their so-called rights to jobs, promotions, and even services infringed, or don't say they are rights. In either case, apply that logic to all forms of discrimination from PRIVATE persons, including businesses.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:51:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:34:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.

(sigh)
Who is blaming anyone for anything?
I am specifically stating that, yes, businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, as they currently do. I see no reason why this discrimination is okay, but not based on some other stupid, illogical, bigoted reason.

So, either be upset that ex-cons have their so-called rights to jobs, promotions, and even services infringed, or don't say they are rights. In either case, apply that logic to all forms of discrimination from PRIVATE persons, including businesses.

You willingly gave up those rights when you comitted a felony. Ignorance of the law (as in forfeiting those rights) is not an excuse.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 8:11:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:51:33 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:34:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.

(sigh)
Who is blaming anyone for anything?
I am specifically stating that, yes, businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, as they currently do. I see no reason why this discrimination is okay, but not based on some other stupid, illogical, bigoted reason.

So, either be upset that ex-cons have their so-called rights to jobs, promotions, and even services infringed, or don't say they are rights. In either case, apply that logic to all forms of discrimination from PRIVATE persons, including businesses.

You willingly gave up those rights when you comitted a felony. Ignorance of the law (as in forfeiting those rights) is not an excuse.

So, you are fine with businesses discriminating against people. Good. We are in agreement. Now, you just need to be consistent.

Otherwise, your last three posts have absolutely no value, as their only purpose is to discredit me. It's almost like you were trying to build up some privilege argument, but when that didn't work, you are no resorting to strawmanning my argument, because nothing in your last three posts have anything to do with the OP. (evidenced by the fact you only responded to the discrimination I face once answered, and ignored everything else)
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 8:28:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 9:51:16 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I disagree.
How did any such law ever come into existence if not for the majority to realize the error of its ways? It's not like women voted themselves the right to vote.
I see no reason why the majority cannot be split on issues, and do you think the majority of American would openly discriminate if they could?

There are many reasons we do not have legislation by referendum but rather a representative government. Sometimes, or even oftentimes legislators impose laws that are not highly popular with the majority. Or for the sake of expediency, I can just call it "tyranny of half the populace."

I see you did not answer my question ;)
Do you think the majority of businesses would turn away clients and/or turn away valuable employees just because they are now allowed to? I doubt it. There may be a thinning of the herd at the start of this, with people who fire nonvaluable employees now that there is no risk of lawsuit.
The answer is no. Even when there was actual legal discrimination, businesses did what they could (generally) to not turn away customers. Yes, you had white counters and blacks ate in the back. But, the blacks were still served in the racist south. They still rode buses. They did not starve. In the worst setting possible, businesses still wanted to make money, and served those they likely could have gotten away with not serving.

But, it's not tyranny, then, is it, if the laws are made by so few? In fact, all it takes is a few hundred people, and generally these people are more educated and have more foresight than the general populace.

My larger point is that society can certainly cause laws to change, but there are certain types of laws that can also cause society to change as well. It can be difficult to discern which leads and which lags sometimes. Considering US history, anti-discrimination laws are an example of laws causing societal change.

Is this the function of government, though?
And, no, the laws almost always lag behind others. It is rare for a politician to do what is right just because it is right - they do not do political suicide. They will take a new stand on a position when it is viable.
Look at the civil rights act. You clearly had black lawyers and doctors, even in the south. Enough progress had been made in racial tensions to warrant a law.
At best, the law forces the minority (bigots) to change. However, that is not society, since society has already largely changed. I would argue that laws do not cause societal change, and those that claim to, are largely symbolic.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:36:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 8:11:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:51:33 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:34:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.

(sigh)
Who is blaming anyone for anything?
I am specifically stating that, yes, businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, as they currently do. I see no reason why this discrimination is okay, but not based on some other stupid, illogical, bigoted reason.

So, either be upset that ex-cons have their so-called rights to jobs, promotions, and even services infringed, or don't say they are rights. In either case, apply that logic to all forms of discrimination from PRIVATE persons, including businesses.

You willingly gave up those rights when you comitted a felony. Ignorance of the law (as in forfeiting those rights) is not an excuse.

So, you are fine with businesses discriminating against people. Good. We are in agreement. Now, you just need to be consistent.

Otherwise, your last three posts have absolutely no value, as their only purpose is to discredit me. It's almost like you were trying to build up some privilege argument, but when that didn't work, you are no resorting to strawmanning my argument, because nothing in your last three posts have anything to do with the OP. (evidenced by the fact you only responded to the discrimination I face once answered, and ignored everything else)

You are either very confused, very naive, or deep in denial. Any any case, you simply refuse to listen to reason. No point in further discussion with you.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:25:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:36:44 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

You are either very confused, very naive, or deep in denial. Any any case, you simply refuse to listen to reason. No point in further discussion with you.

What reason are you voicing?
You said:
"[dropping everything else said in the previous point] There is only one reason for the loss of those three rights.

I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame others.

You willingly gave up those rights when you violated the law."

None of this addresses the issue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, WHICH YOU AGREE WITH, yet you also say that businesses should be open to all. Which is it?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 1:31:26 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
From your almost identical thread in the "Politics" forum:

https://www.legalzoom.com...

And since you are following that thread, you know that the civil rights act does not apply to non-interstate commerce and/or business of less than 15 employees.
And, again, I challenge the law, so citing the law is irrelevant to me. The law should be repealed. But, where would your argument go?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 4:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:59:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/20/2015 1:31:26 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
From your almost identical thread in the "Politics" forum:

https://www.legalzoom.com...

And since you are following that thread, you know that the civil rights act does not apply to non-interstate commerce and/or business of less than 15 employees.
And, again, I challenge the law, so citing the law is irrelevant to me. The law should be repealed. But, where would your argument go?

"the law is irrelevant to me " Quite the attitude you have. Did that same attitude work for you before?

Go right ahead and challenge it You better have a damn good attorney willing to go all the way to SCOTUS.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:25:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think you will find that the Interstate Commerce statues DO APPLY. Are ANY of the goods used in your business from another state?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Also, I think you will find the <15 employees you cite only applies to employment discrimination.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 5:52:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 5:25:45 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I think you will find that the Interstate Commerce statues DO APPLY. Are ANY of the goods used in your business from another state?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Also, I think you will find the <15 employees you cite only applies to employment discrimination.

Don't bother with this guy. He has no comprehension between the reason behind why the government treats certain classes differently from other. He thinks all forms of government discrimination is the same at all levels. Although he seems really keen on defending his "right" to discriminate against minorities.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:02:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 8:28:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:51:16 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I disagree.
How did any such law ever come into existence if not for the majority to realize the error of its ways? It's not like women voted themselves the right to vote.
I see no reason why the majority cannot be split on issues, and do you think the majority of American would openly discriminate if they could?

There are many reasons we do not have legislation by referendum but rather a representative government. Sometimes, or even oftentimes legislators impose laws that are not highly popular with the majority. Or for the sake of expediency, I can just call it "tyranny of half the populace."

I see you did not answer my question ;)

Oh-- that was not an intentional avoidance on my part. I answered your first question and figured your second was basically a rhetorical one-- it is vague and invites a very large amount of speculation. Complete speculation and a nickel will get a person a bowl full of jack squat...

Do you think the majority of businesses would turn away clients and/or turn away valuable employees just because they are now allowed to? I doubt it. There may be a thinning of the herd at the start of this, with people who fire nonvaluable employees now that there is no risk of lawsuit.

Again, a question that invites pure speculation. That said, I will reiterate: the military has turned large numbers of people away and discharged people who were very good at what they did. Don't get bogged down in the government/non-government aspect because my point is to highlight the pettiness of human nature here. You seem to be asking: "Would people really be THAT petty?" I am saying, based upon historical hindsight: yes.

You seem to think that anti-discrimination laws are just dreamed up without much provocation or need because legislators have nothing better to do with their time.

The answer is no. Even when there was actual legal discrimination, businesses did what they could (generally) to not turn away customers. Yes, you had white counters and blacks ate in the back. But, the blacks were still served in the racist south. They still rode buses. They did not starve. In the worst setting possible, businesses still wanted to make money, and served those they likely could have gotten away with not serving.

But, it's not tyranny, then, is it, if the laws are made by so few? In fact, all it takes is a few hundred people, and generally these people are more educated and have more foresight than the general populace.

My larger point is that society can certainly cause laws to change, but there are certain types of laws that can also cause society to change as well. It can be difficult to discern which leads and which lags sometimes. Considering US history, anti-discrimination laws are an example of laws causing societal change.

Is this the function of government, though?

It is the duty of government to protect society. Discrimination against people for characteristics out of their control, and characteristics they shouldn't have to alter even if they could, is damaging to society.

And, no, the laws almost always lag behind others. It is rare for a politician to do what is right just because it is right - they do not do political suicide. They will take a new stand on a position when it is viable.

You seem to ignore the historic political fallout from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It rearranged the two major US political parties. If it wasn't political suicide, it was at least political self-mutilation.

Look at the civil rights act. You clearly had black lawyers and doctors, even in the south. Enough progress had been made in racial tensions to warrant a law.
At best, the law forces the minority (bigots) to change. However, that is not society, since society has already largely changed. I would argue that laws do not cause societal change, and those that claim to, are largely symbolic.

Considering the historic and epic disagreements over the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I'm not sure how you can write that with a straight face...

Let me boil it all down here and state my case as simply and fundamentally as I can:

-Anti-discrimination laws limit the freedom of bigots to discriminate.
-Bigots limit the freedom of people with certain disliked characteristics they have no control over (and shouldn't have to change even if they could).
-Anti-discrimination laws increase the liberty of people who are just trying to live their lives, while limiting the freedom of people who want to limit the freedom of people they are bigoted against.

So, I conclude that these laws inhibit those freedoms which are harmful to society when excercised while expanding the freedoms of people who do not harm society.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:36:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:36:44 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 8:11:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:51:33 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:34:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.

(sigh)
Who is blaming anyone for anything?
I am specifically stating that, yes, businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, as they currently do. I see no reason why this discrimination is okay, but not based on some other stupid, illogical, bigoted reason.

So, either be upset that ex-cons have their so-called rights to jobs, promotions, and even services infringed, or don't say they are rights. In either case, apply that logic to all forms of discrimination from PRIVATE persons, including businesses.

You willingly gave up those rights when you comitted a felony. Ignorance of the law (as in forfeiting those rights) is not an excuse.

So, you are fine with businesses discriminating against people. Good. We are in agreement. Now, you just need to be consistent.

Otherwise, your last three posts have absolutely no value, as their only purpose is to discredit me. It's almost like you were trying to build up some privilege argument, but when that didn't work, you are no resorting to strawmanning my argument, because nothing in your last three posts have anything to do with the OP. (evidenced by the fact you only responded to the discrimination I face once answered, and ignored everything else)

You are either very confused, very naive, or deep in denial. Any any case, you simply refuse to listen to reason. No point in further discussion with you.

Exactly right. He is basically bitter about having to face the consequences of his own actions that he wants everyone else to suffer the same way he does. So he makes every possible excuse as to why he feels anti-discrimination laws are "unfair" and "flawed" because he can't stand the thought of certain people being exempt from the very thing in which he cannot escape, even though it's his own fault.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 8:04:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 7:36:13 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:36:44 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/20/2015 8:11:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:51:33 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:34:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:27:07 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:07:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/19/2015 9:54:38 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

I can only think of one reason for all three of those to apply to an one
individual.

And, tell me, are you upset that an ex-con is discriminated every day? Or do you just rationalize it away?
Where is your sense of equality, decency, and justice?
Or, is it the business owner's right to not associate with me?

After all, I have rights, too, right?
Oh, wait, my stance is that I don't have a right to a job, isn't it?
Oh, wait, my stance is that there is legitimate reasons for government to discriminate, isn't it?

But, surely YOU cannot stand for such injustice, right?
Or, do you just care about the issues you face, and not care about being consistent?

FYI. I'm in the same boat. But I don't blame other people for the consequences I brought on myself.

(sigh)
Who is blaming anyone for anything?
I am specifically stating that, yes, businesses should be allowed to discriminate against me, as they currently do. I see no reason why this discrimination is okay, but not based on some other stupid, illogical, bigoted reason.

So, either be upset that ex-cons have their so-called rights to jobs, promotions, and even services infringed, or don't say they are rights. In either case, apply that logic to all forms of discrimination from PRIVATE persons, including businesses.

You willingly gave up those rights when you comitted a felony. Ignorance of the law (as in forfeiting those rights) is not an excuse.

So, you are fine with businesses discriminating against people. Good. We are in agreement. Now, you just need to be consistent.

Otherwise, your last three posts have absolutely no value, as their only purpose is to discredit me. It's almost like you were trying to build up some privilege argument, but when that didn't work, you are no resorting to strawmanning my argument, because nothing in your last three posts have anything to do with the OP. (evidenced by the fact you only responded to the discrimination I face once answered, and ignored everything else)

You are either very confused, very naive, or deep in denial. Any any case, you simply refuse to listen to reason. No point in further discussion with you.

Exactly right. He is basically bitter about having to face the consequences of his own actions that he wants everyone else to suffer the same way he does. So he makes every possible excuse as to why he feels anti-discrimination laws are "unfair" and "flawed" because he can't stand the thought of certain people being exempt from the very thing in which he cannot escape, even though it's his own fault.

Yes, he's trying to play the victim.