It's perfectly expected to refuse to hire someone who is obviously not qualified for the job and who doesn't possess the necessarily personality traits to handle a multicultural environment. It's not okay to refuse employment based solely on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
No one is being forced to hire anyone. They're just being told that sexual orientation alone is not a valid reason to refuse someone employment when they are otherwise perfectly qualified for the job.
I understand the concept of sin just fine. I grew up Catholic. As such, I was told to hate the sin and love the sinner. But, like everything else, they were just meaningless, empty words. As the reaction of the Pope himself proves, when it comes to gays, the new motto seems to be "hate the sin, hate the sinner, ostracize him/her". Too bad they don't feel the same about the bad apples in their midst. If they did, at least I could commend their consistency.
No idea. If they don't, can't they still discriminate? Anyone but gays, for instance.
I don't think they discriminate against anyone other than gays. But if they did, I don't think they should be granted special permission to do so. I believe discrimination is harmful to society and minorities should be protected. I can understand a stated preference for Catholic employees, but there's no valid reason to refuse a Jewish or Muslim doctor if he comes highly recommended. It can only benefit the hospital to have the best people on staff.
This is a perfect example of why we have fireman who can't rescue people from a burring building.
If it is a private company they certainly can fire or not hire someone based on whatever reason they like. It is called freedom of choice.
Fortunately here in the US, we understand this.
In most states in the US they have what is called "at will" employment. They can hire and fire for whatever reason they like.
This works.
I agree it shoudln't be a special permission for Catholics. It should be consistently applied.
I think minorities should not be given special allowance. They should not be guaranteed jobs, that take those jobs from others more qualified (no affirmative action). If a firm wants to discriminate, it should be their prerogative. A government owned business (Universities, CIty hospitals, police, etc...) should not discriminate. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to take the more qualified gay doctor, then they can.
Actually the 'Pope' is an elected office, he is elected by a conclave of his Peers, they being the Cardinals of this disgusting Religion.
Have you ever refused to go on a date with someone? Have you ever avoided certain areas in London? Do you have a specific group of people you associate with, or do you become friends with every single person you meet?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm talking about hiring the best person for the job and you tell me about totally useless firemen?
Obviously. It results in firemen who can't even do their job. Score. :lol:
Female fireman could not lift the 150lb dummy up a flight of stairs and was not hired. She sued for discrimination and they had to hire her.
In the end the Fire Dept's had to lower their standards so they could hire more females.
Female fireman could not lift the 150lb dummy up a flight of stairs and was not hired. She sued for discrimination and they had to hire her.
In the end the Fire Dept's had to lower their standards so they could hire more females.
This is bull**** as we know now. :2wave:
All your kind of thinking on this does is lower the overall standards. It has come to the point that company's hire unqualified people because of the race or sex etc. It does the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.
Well, if you'd given me the details from the start instead of being needlessly cryptic, we could have carried on a more useful conversation, don't you think?
Anyhoo, if your account is correct, it has very little to do with what I'm "trying to accomplish". My goal is not for unqualified people to be given any kind of undeserved preference in the hiring process. Quite the opposite in fact. The problem in your story is not the anti-discrimination laws, but the baffling stupidity of your courts. It boggles the mind that anyone so ridiculously unqualified for a position would not only sue but actually win the lawsuit. What kind of kangaroo court was that?
The protection against discrimination should never, ever mean protection against blatant unsuitability for a job.
There is a world of difference between refusing to hire a woman who does not possess the required physical strength to handle her job and refusing to hire her simply because she's a woman. If she can't perform, then she shouldn't get the job and any judge that would rule that she should has got his head so far up his PC backside it's not even funny.
It is a well known news story from years ago.
It is the same for most court's in the world, as judges are just people. Prone to the same prejudices etc.
If we would just let private company's hire who they want, the whole problem would end.
We don't need the government to solve every problem we have. In fact like discrimination laws, they just aggravate it.
Affirmative action is a good example. Even before it was enacted blacks were making good in roads in the work places etc. With hard work and good grades, those first few overcame the racist obstacles. They set a good example for the community and accomplished more by themselves than Affirmative action ever did. Would it have taken a little longer overall? Yes. Would the outcome have been better? Absolutely. Instead of people like Collen Powell, having people say it was just affirmative action. They would be saying what a man.
All we have today because of it is unqualified people giving others a bad name.
Great job government.
So yes, people with the same "lets use the government to make it fair" attitude like yours are part of of the problem.
And yet more often than not, this is exactly what it accomplishes.
I can say exactly the same thing about anti discrimination laws.
I still contend that anti-discrimination laws are a good thing for society and that it is the governement's job to protect minorites.
Why shouldn't private firms be able to discriminate if they wish?
Like I said, I think it's very harmful to society to allow certain specific groups to be repeatedly discriminated against. Private firms are as much part of society as you and I and they should abide by these laws.
Tell me, if the government doesn't step in to protect the rights of minorities, who will?
I'm not willing to live in an Indian-style type of society, with a caste system that ensures that millions will forever be second, third or even fourth-class citizens with no hope of ever moving up. It's uncivilized and unworthy of us.
I have no problem with government organization being required to not discriminate. I do see a problem with government forcing anti-discrimination on a private firm. This falls into the same category as other regulation I think.
When a company discriminates, I don't think the rights of minorities have been violated.
When a company discriminates, I don't think the rights of minorities have been violated.
You're right, it does fall in the same category as other regulations. Those regulations are usually in place to prevent private businesses from damaging the environment, poisoning or endagering the lives of their customers and/or their employees etc... Private companies cannot operate in any manner they wish to when they are interacting with the rest of us. They aren't allowed to harm society at large. I see anti-discrimination laws in the same way. If we can regulate the way a company operates in order to protect the environment, I see no reason why we can't impose regulations in order to protect human beings as well. We don't live in a vacuum, like it or not, we all have social responsibilities. Private companies do not get a free pass.
So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:
So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:
I'd never heard of it. Must be that pesky ocean between our two continents. Not everything that hapens over there makes it over here.
This was all due to some PC non-sense about quotas. None of which has anything to do with anti-discrimination laws, but more with affirmative action which I am not in favor of.
I still contend that anti-discrimination laws are a good thing for society and that it is the governement's job to protect minorites.
The fact that certain courts do a lousy job at interpreting these laws and get them confused with affirmative action laws is not a good enough reason to strike these protections down.
The problems you mention don't result from the anti-discrimination law itself. They are due to an overly litigious society and a justice system too lazy, or worse, too weak to interpret the laws as they should be.
You're right, it does fall in the same category as other regulations. Those regulations are usually in place to prevent private businesses from damaging the environment, poisoning or endagering the lives of their customers and/or their employees etc... Private companies cannot operate in any manner they wish to when they are interacting with the rest of us. They aren't allowed to harm society at large.
I see anti-discrimination laws in the same way.
If we can regulate the way a company operates in order to protect the environment, I see no reason why we can't impose regulations in order to protect human beings as well.
We don't live in a vacuum, like it or not, we all have social responsibilities. Private companies do not get a free pass.
Affirmative action IS AN ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAW. They are not separate.
There is a difference between regulations that protect the environment and the lives of customers or employees and protects the market place from unfair business practices, on the one hand, and regulations that force a company to certain hiring demographics. What is being protected? We should not over-regulate as we will become a socialist country in all but name and the government will make market decisions.
So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?