U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2009, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 12,761,482 times
Reputation: 3536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
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.
Ahh...a Canadian. Of course you'd see it differently.
Trust me, I'd love to be a Canadian citizen. My gf and I look forward to seeing Canada.

I guess we Americans like knowing there is still a group we can discriminate against in most states.

 
Old 06-07-2009, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Maine
898 posts, read 1,194,234 times
Reputation: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
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
I don't feel a business should be treated as anything other than the property of the individual who owns it.

As for the hypothetical black man that got fired, his rights are the same as anyone else who has been fired. He can, and should, go look for another job. He can also use his freedom of speech to alert the general public of his treatment by his old boss, which would probably stir up boycotts, and likely drive the fellow out of business.

Any rate, I'm out for the evening.
Live long and prosper.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,506 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
Ahh...a Canadian. Of course you'd see it differently.
Trust me, I'd love to be a Canadian citizen. My gf and I look forward to seeing Canada.

I guess we Americans like knowing there is still a group we can discriminate against in most states.
Well any nation can choose the path and its destiny for the future...I look forward to seeing you up here

I've been south of the 49th many times though so i might see you down there first
 
Old 06-07-2009, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,506 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by melinuxfool View Post
I don't feel a business should be treated as anything other than the property of the individual who owns it.

As for the hypothetical black man that got fired, his rights are the same as anyone else who has been fired. He can, and should, go look for another job. He can also use his freedom of speech to alert the general public of his treatment by his old boss, which would probably stir up boycotts, and likely drive the fellow out of business.

Any rate, I'm out for the evening.
Live long and prosper.
Yup we won't see eye to eye on this my Vulcan friend. Though i don't think you have ownership of logic in this argument - we can alwasy agreeably disagree

Live long and prosper
 
Old 06-07-2009, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,179 posts, read 9,115,151 times
Reputation: 9523
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
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?

Actually, yes, that SHOULD be the message. I had three kids and never once had a maternity leave. Why? Because the boss wasn't the father! Why is it a business's responsibility to pay for someone else's choice? If you are working, you should be aware that the boss expects you there, PAYS you to be there, on time, making your hours and doing your job. When you're not there, either the work piles up until you get back, or the boss has to pay someone else to do it. (or your responsible co-workers have to carry your workload - which is a whole 'nother topic.) If a person is not a responsible worker, then they should be let go. The purpose of business is not to cater to each individual worker, but to make money for not just the boss or the CEO's, but the employee paychecks, raises, bonuses, bennies, and vacations. All of this touchy-feely stuff brings down businesses, by making people less responsible about their jobs and more demanding about what they think that they deserve from their employers. An employer owes you a paycheck - not a maternity leave, not a day care center, not breast surgery, not transsexual surgery, nothing else. When government forces businesses to employ people no matter what their life choices are - nor no matter what detriment those employees are to a company - government destroys that company, by telling it that it's business is secondary to it's employees' "rights". Work ethic? What's a work ethic? Too many people honestly don't know, especially in government and the media, where they try to paint business as an evil insitution that "owes" employees considerations that those same employees wouldn't pay for their neighbor, much less their own family, to receive.

I worked for a gay guy, and we got along great - I didn't try to weasel out of the tough jobs (and it was a VERY physical job) because I was a woman, I didn't ask for anything above my paycheck and the benefits we had agreed on at the beginning. We were partners in making his business succeed - which increased his business and my paychecks. We didn't hold hands and dance around the Maypole - we worked HARD to make his business a success. Any other attitude is a waste of money and destroys, not enhances, business, and increases the cost of doing business.

As the unemployment rate climbs, and more and more businesses close and people lose their jobs, there will be less and less benefits offered. Any interference by government to cater to people who demand considerations other than what the businesses can afford will cause businesses to close, because they cannot cater to employees while trying to stay in the black. Those folks who think that they can tell businesses how to run their bottom line should try owning one themselves for awhile, and see how 'easy' it is, to hire employees that will just do the danged JOB they were hired to do, without all of the 'what if he's black? What if he's gay? What if she gets pregnant?' extra stuff.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,506 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
Actually, yes, that SHOULD be the message. I had three kids and never once had a maternity leave. Why? Because the boss wasn't the father! Why is it a business's responsibility to pay for someone else's choice? If you are working, you should be aware that the boss expects you there, PAYS you to be there, on time, making your hours and doing your job. When you're not there, either the work piles up until you get back, or the boss has to pay someone else to do it. (or your responsible co-workers have to carry your workload - which is a whole 'nother topic.) If a person is not a responsible worker, then they should be let go. The purpose of business is not to cater to each individual worker, but to make money for not just the boss or the CEO's, but the employee paychecks, raises, bonuses, bennies, and vacations. All of this touchy-feely stuff brings down businesses, by making people less responsible about their jobs and more demanding about what they think that they deserve from their employers. An employer owes you a paycheck - not a maternity leave, not a day care center, not breast surgery, not transsexual surgery, nothing else. When government forces businesses to employ people no matter what their life choices are - nor no matter what detriment those employees are to a company - government destroys that company, by telling it that it's business is secondary to it's employees' "rights". Work ethic? What's a work ethic? Too many people honestly don't know, especially in government and the media, where they try to paint business as an evil insitution that "owes" employees considerations that those same employees wouldn't pay for their neighbor, much less their own family, to receive.

I worked for a gay guy, and we got along great - I didn't try to weasel out of the tough jobs (and it was a VERY physical job) because I was a woman, I didn't ask for anything above my paycheck and the benefits we had agreed on at the beginning. We were partners in making his business succeed - which increased his business and my paychecks. We didn't hold hands and dance around the Maypole - we worked HARD to make his business a success. Any other attitude is a waste of money and destroys, not enhances, business, and increases the cost of doing business.

As the unemployment rate climbs, and more and more businesses close and people lose their jobs, there will be less and less benefits offered. Any interference by government to cater to people who demand considerations other than what the businesses can afford will cause businesses to close, because they cannot cater to employees while trying to stay in the black. Those folks who think that they can tell businesses how to run their bottom line should try owning one themselves for awhile, and see how 'easy' it is, to hire employees that will just do the danged JOB they were hired to do, without all of the 'what if he's black? What if he's gay? What if she gets pregnant?' extra stuff.
You have single handedly assumed that I believe the government should get involved in every facet of a business' operation.... that is not the case. I stated that workers should have certain protective rights and that based on these rights they should not be terminated or not hired based on Age, Gender, Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation etc... where did i say anything about job benefits and mat leave and all the other insinuations you've made? Your government was very liberal about banking regulations and look at your banking system. My government in Canada has regulatory measures in place and have had for some time and we have the best banking system in the world... The government does have a place in society...
 
Old 06-07-2009, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,012 posts, read 2,356,692 times
Reputation: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
For punitive reasons a hate crime should have additional punitive measures against a group listed in the charter of rights and freedoms of any nation - it sends a message to society - these groups are protected!

For educational reasons targetted groups should be tracked - yes - so we can deal with the offenders and teach all elements of society about this hatred and that society does not tolerate it.
Punitive reasons should be dealt with within the legal system (by the current methods I have previous discussed-with no argument that it does not work effectively) - not within the "currently politically correctness" of the day.
After all, Who decides what groups are protected? It's a slippery slope...I want to be protected, I am Obese, A smoker, I stutter...etc. Pretty soon, the while straight male will be the only class not protected - so then, does everything flip at that point? The white male becomes the protected class due to all the reverse discrimintation the government has set into motion?

And you talk about "offenders"...frequently law suits are brought against "offenders" that are frivolous and only brought due to a PERCEIVED slight...because a protected class person has the right to sue because they did not get the job...they have no way of knowing whether or not they were the most qualified for the job. Many many times that is totally subjective. It frequently has nothing to do with hatred at all!
 
Old 06-07-2009, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,506 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie View Post
Punitive reasons should be dealt with within the legal system (by the current methods I have previous discussed-with no argument that it does not work effectively) - not within the "currently politically correctness" of the day.
After all, Who decides what groups are protected? It's a slippery slope...I want to be protected, I am Obese, A smoker, I stutter...etc. Pretty soon, the while straight male will be the only class not protected - so then, does everything flip at that point? The white male becomes the protected class due to all the reverse discrimintation the government has set into motion?

And you talk about "offenders"...frequently law suits are brought against "offenders" that are frivolous and only brought due to a PERCEIVED slight...because a protected class person has the right to sue because they did not get the job...they have no way of knowing whether or not they were the most qualified for the job. Many many times that is totally subjective. It frequently has nothing to do with hatred at all!
Key protected groups that need to be included are based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation and physical stature.

If an employer hires the most qualified candidate - they should have nothing to worry about - transparency. I know what you're getting at and no doubt there are numerous bogus claims.. but I do feel as a society - protecting groups that need to be protected is the lesser evil than none at all.....White males should also be protected btw....
 
Old 06-08-2009, 03:42 AM
 
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,012 posts, read 2,356,692 times
Reputation: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
Key protected groups that need to be included are based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation and physical stature.

If an employer hires the most qualified candidate - they should have nothing to worry about - transparency. I know what you're getting at and no doubt there are numerous bogus claims.. but I do feel as a society - protecting groups that need to be protected is the lesser evil than none at all.....White males should also be protected btw....
Well then, if white males should be protected, then we have come full circle and protected everyone...basically putting everyone on that equal playing field I started with, haven't we? And by 'protecting' every class, we are protecting no class at all...?
 
Old 07-04-2009, 07:09 AM
 
71 posts, read 145,986 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie View Post
I could not agree more...especially a few pages back where Freedom99 states that the reciprocal does not apply....if a gay were to kill a straight person it does not apply.

I am SO TIRED of "We want to be equal except when we conveniently don't want to be equal" The LIFE of every individual, is sacred. and dead is dead. I refer back to Texas...what...about 8-10 years ago, when that poor black man was dragged behind the pick up truck, and the perpetrators were rightfully sentenced to death. BUT there was a great outcry to apply the Hate crimes statutes (that they didn't have in TX at the time)....How much more DEAD than DEAD can you be??? The perpetrators were sentenced to death w/o hate crimes statutes.

The law should be applied equally, and there is NO PLACE for hate crimes application within our Constitution. It is called aggravating circumstance (where it shows the intent of the defendant to the jury and therefore the sentence is determined based on the criminal's intent)


Obviously, I don't think it is OK to kill Gays or any other Human being. I also feel that if a person is qualified for a job, and not a distraction, they should get a job, based on their individual merits. If they show up for a job in inappropriate flaming attire, they should not EXPECT to get that job. I do not show up on an interview with a midriff top and a navel ring and expect to get hired.......
What?! Where did I say that. I said the reciprocal does apply. Actually read the post if you feel like responding to it. I said if a gay person kills a straight person (solely for their sexual orientation) DOES apply. I don't get whats so difficult to comprehend about this. Thats why some states consider 'sexual orientation' a protected class. Notice its not called 'gay protection'. It protects all 'sexual orientations' against discrimination. The same way race laws are supposed to protect people off ALL races from racial discrimination.

As for all those people bringing up affirmative action as an example of the evils of federal discrimination laws, this just shows how confused you are. Affirmative action is being opposed because it violates federal discrimination laws (at least that is what I thought, maybe there are some ulterior motives why people get so incensed over poor minority kids getting in to better schools, when their are already programs for legacies and recruited athletes ) The Supreme Court ruling on those firefighters actually strengthens federal discrimination law. High Court Rules For White Firefighters : NPR Read carefully and notice how the article uses the words 'violated the law'.
Discrimination laws are going away anytime soon unless you have the guts to explain to your representatives why you feel all businesses/organizations should be free to discriminate at will (in that case YAY for Affrimative Action) and stop trying to use those evil federal laws to stop those 'unqualified' minorities from unfairly getting ahead.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top