- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I don't really see any difference. Why is one regulation acceptable when it involves protecting the environement from damage, but another is not when it involves protecting minorities from discrimination?
Nuff said.
What????
Quota's are a direct result of anti discrimination laws.
Your hearts in the right place, but involving a PC and over reacting government is just plain stupid. This is what you are advocating.
And in the process it widens the racial divide and directly causes quota's, jealousy and an entitlement mind set.
They are doing more harm then good.
Affirmative action IS AN ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAW. They are not separate.
The problems I mentioned are a direct result of anti discrimination laws. They and the associated problems are a direct result courts or not.
I don't really see any difference. Why is one regulation acceptable when it involves protecting the environement from damage, but another is not when it involves protecting minorities from discrimination?
Hmmm...you can't see a difference between a poisoned well and hurt feelings?
And you want us to try to explain it to you?
Why should we bother?
- discrimination doesn't threaten one's health.
- discrimination doesn't create predatory business practices (another acceptable regulation).
- protecting minorities from discrimination skews the talent pool of the workforce and is unfair to businesses. This prevents the market from optimizing.
- protecting minorities from discrimination is social engineering and prevents the minorities from improving themselves.
- protecting minorities from discrimination creates another government assistance for minorities to unfairly take advantage of. It reduces individual responsibility.
Affirmative action IS AN ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAW. They are not separate.
I think you're making the same amalgam with affirmative action laws that Blackdog is making. Anti-discrimination laws do not force anyone to hire anybody. If you're not suited for a job, you should not get it.
Discrimination may very well threaten a person's health if insurance companies are allowed to discriminate against some elements of society.
I agree with some of these: age, disabilities but not others: gender, race.
Perhaps you are right. Ok, what the hell is an anti-discrimination law?
The best I have come up with is the Equal Opportunity Act. Here is a summary of Federal Laws prohibiting job discrimination: Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers I agree with some of these: age, disabilities but not others: gender, race.
If it isn't defining quotas, then the accuser must prove discrimination occurred? That doesn't sound easy to do. I could have sworn that I have heard accusers make their case by looking at the percentages of various minorities employed at a business and if a minority isn't up to quota, the company gets dinged for discrimination. So they do bring about soft quotas.
Ok, I think on this one you are wrong. Anti-discrimination has to do with employment. However an insurance company absolutely cannot refuse a customer because of gender, race, age, or disability. If that is also covered under anti-discrimination law, then I am all for that aspect of it.
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?