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.
You are creating extreme hypotheticals. I'm talking about viewpoints and embarrassing behavior or speech that was recognized as being personal and private life.
There were a lot of people in the '50s who lost their jobs for signing petitions, going to certain rallies, or being seen purchasing certain books, newspapers, and magazines. And some of those people were very prominent people.
I read about teens in the early '50s who played pranks on adults in their neighborhoods by leaving copies of The Daily Worker in their cars at night so they'd get in trouble at work.
Why do you take things out of context and come from way out of left field no pun intended?
I'm trying to understand your point. You were told to read some history - to which you replied you will not read "propaganda". I'm literally using your word here.
I actually don't think you have to. I mentioned that before. Are you refusing service because he is white (can't do that)? Or because he's a POS WS (I think you can)?
But why can't I discriminate based on race (which isn't even real...it's a statist social construct) but can discriminate based on him being pictured at a rally?
I don't understand the moral or logical consistency in approving of one but not the other.
You don't have a right to a job, so its up to the employer.
While that is true, it is a dangerous precedent to set for being able to earn a living. Taken to it's logical conclusion employers could fire someone for attending a Democratic or Republican event just as easily.
While that is true, it is a dangerous precedent to set for being able to earn a living. Taken to it's logical conclusion employers could fire someone for attending a Democratic or Republican event just as easily.
Nazi flag symbolic of the extermination of the Jewish race
But why can't I discriminate based on race (which isn't even real...it's a statist social construct) but can discriminate based on him being pictured at a rally?
I don't understand the moral or logical consistency in approving of one but not the other.
I mean...I see your point, and I do acknowledge there are some weaknesses in the argument.
But I think it's really about things you can "control" vs. "not control". You can't change certain things about yourself, so to discriminate based on that is wrong since it's not that person's fault that they are that way.
As for the "why" - well, it's what we decided for our society. Much of what makes a country is what society pushes for.
While that is true, it is a dangerous precedent to set for being able to earn a living. Taken to it's logical conclusion employers could fire someone for attending a Democratic or Republican event just as easily.
Why can't an employer fire a man for attending an event of one of or both those entities?
The employer owes the employee a job if he can fire him for whatever reason he sees fit or for no reason at all.
Logically and morally there is no consistency being displayed here by the statists.
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.
