Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying an owner can't run his business and he can fire and hire whomever he pleases as long as the hiring and firing isn't based on violating the protected rights of an individatual.
The Barbershop owner can fire someone for performance reasons or hire someone because they have the skills to do the job regardless of race (insert group here)
However he can't hire someone or fire someone because of their race (insert protected group here)
And I'm saying that specifying for what reasons he may or may not fire or hire is an infringement on his rights. I'm not saying I'm in favor of discrimination. I most likely wouldn't patronize such places, but, that said, the place of business is still the private property of the owner, and it is his right to say who can and cannot be there. If the guy's a member of the KKK and doesn't want to hire a black man because he's black, it's his property, his business, so who are we to say he can't run it the way he sees? He's violating nobody's rights in that case. Sure, the hypothetical KKK businessman is scum of the earth, but as long as its his property, its his choice, just as its my choice not to patronize his business.
And I'm saying that specifying for what reasons he may or may not fire or hire is an infringement on his rights. I'm not saying I'm in favor of discrimination. I most likely wouldn't patronize such places, but, that said, the place of business is still the private property of the owner, and it is his right to say who can and cannot be there. If the guy's a member of the KKK and doesn't want to hire a black man because he's black, it's his property, his business, so who are we to say he can't run it the way he sees? He's violating nobody's rights in that case. Sure, the hypothetical KKK businessman is scum of the earth, but as long as its his property, its his choice, just as its my choice not to patronize his business.
His rights as a business owner should not infringe on the rights of protected groups in a charter of rights and freedoms. You favour rights of a business owner over all else - i don't. I think society should be protecting certain groups or things will be a free for all...I don't treat a business as an individual.
I can't watch this at work lol... But you don't think a society should protect certain groups? - the message should be - it's a free for all?
You're at work?
I think we as a society should have certain norms that it isn't okay to discriminate. Laws don't necessarily change behavior as one poster said.
As much as I would love for there to be laws protecting all sorts of people, it isn't the best way to go about it.
In terms of things involving the state, there shouldn't be discrimination, examples being public housing, employment with the state or federal government, public education, etc.
Businesses should be allowed to make their own determinations as to who they want to hire without any repercussions because they passed over the black candidate, the gay candidate, etc.
Those who have a more diverse workforce or a more inclusive workforce will more than likely reap the benefits of that. I would be more likely to spend my dollars at a place that has more black and/or gay employees than at a place that is full of evangelical Christians.
His rights as a business owner should not infringe on the rights of protected groups in a charter of rights and freedoms. You favour rights of a business owner over all else - i don't. I think society should be protecting certain groups or things will be a free for all...
No, I don't favor his rights OVER all else. I favor INDIVIDUAL rights over all else. And an individual's property, regardless of whether he uses it as a domicile or a place of selling, is his CASTLE. Do you think your government has any business telling you who you must allow into your house or any other properties that you own?
No, I don't favor his rights OVER all else. I favor INDIVIDUAL rights over all else. And an individual's property, regardless of whether he uses it as a domicile or a place of selling, is his CASTLE. Do you think your government has any business telling you who you must allow into your house or any other properties that you own?
Nope government should stay out of my house - government should not stay out of my business if i violate the rules.
Individual = individual
Business owner != individual
I work for a company that has 1000+ employees and i'm in a Supervisory position... if I advocate to HR firing an employee because I felt they were too old or gay - i'd get slaughtered lol
Nope government should stay out of my house - government should not stay out of my business if i violate the rules.
There's where we differ. I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian, though I play devil's advocate a lot.
I believe the only purpose of government should be to protect individual rights. Government, in my opinion, should have no part of business. Business, should not even be recognized by government. Businesses should never be punished. But the INDIVIDUALS who own them should be held accountable should they violate anyone's rights.
Not hiring someone because of what they cannot help, while scummy, is not a violation of their rights. They don't have an automatic right to be on someone else's property.
I think we as a society should have certain norms that it isn't okay to discriminate. Laws don't necessarily change behavior as one poster said.
As much as I would love for there to be laws protecting all sorts of people, it isn't the best way to go about it.
In terms of things involving the state, there shouldn't be discrimination, examples being public housing, employment with the state or federal government, public education, etc.
Businesses should be allowed to make their own determinations as to who they want to hire without any repercussions because they passed over the black candidate, the gay candidate, etc.
Oh i'm all for getting to the root of the problem via sociological measures like education...
However, i do advocate business being legally accountable to respecting certain groups rights. Perhaps i'm too Canadian but we have a Charter of rights and freedoms and Human rights that must be respected and our society functions well.
It is a two-pronged approach to dealing with discrimatory matters and it is a society setting a clear message.
There's where we differ. I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian, though I play devil's advocate a lot.
I believe the only purpose of government should be to protect individual rights. Government, in my opinion, should have no part of business. Business, should not even be recognized by government. Businesses should never be punished. But the INDIVIDUALS who own them should be held accountable should they violate anyone's rights.
Not hiring someone because of what they cannot help, while scummy, is not a violation of their rights. They don't have an automatic right to be on someone else's property.
Individual rights over all else.
I think you are displaying a double standard though. To the person fired for explanation being black - where are this individuals rights there?
Aside from that our fundamental difference is that you treat a business the same as an individual and I don't... its ok
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
