Rand Paul, Racism and 1965 Civil Rights Act

[MrFun]

I'm not interested in going down the rabbit hole of absurdity.

[David Floyd]

So you're fine if I refuse to rent to fat people, as long as they're white?

[Ben Kenobi]

No... my assertion is that after the depression ended, employment more or less returned to the way it was before the depression.

Interesting argument, except that black people were more likely to be employed, and so were women. There were structural changes in the labour market from the war that persisted.

The assumptions I make are that racism was a constant factor before, during and after the great depression, and the effects of the great depression had a disproportionately strong impact on black people. The only thing ending in 1940 is the depression.

Quite a few things ended in 1940. One of them was the structural unemployment of black people present in both the 20s and the 30s.

[Wezil]

So you're fine if I refuse to rent to fat people, as long as they're white?

Obesity is arguably something people have control of, unlike gender or race.

Unfortunately, ugly is just ugly.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n23_v85/ai_15133411/

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2005/04/07/beauty-and-wealth/

[David Floyd]

Arguably, you can control gender.

Hell, even race. Ask Michael Jackson.

But come on, some people can't control obesity, and who are we to judge who can or can't? Can you even imagine what it's like to be discriminated against because of weight? Well, I can't either but I imagine it's awful. Legislation now!

[Wezil]

Alright, I will compromise -

Fatties without doctor's notes are fair game.

[David Floyd]

Do fat doctors get to write their own notes?

MrFun, this is why civil rights legislation as it applies to private enterprise is ****ing ridiculous. If you don't think there are significant numbers of people out there who want to make fatties a protected class, you haven't looked into it.

[Heraclitus]

Height is another example of the terrible blight of lookism.

From wikipedia:

Currently, there is one state in the United States of America, Michigan, that prohibits height discrimination.[18] There is pending legislation introduced by Massachusetts Representative Byron Rushing which would add Massachusetts to the list.[19] Two municipalities currently prohibit height discrimination: Santa Cruz, California[20] and San Francisco, California.[21] The District of Columbia prohibits discrimination based on personal appearance.[22] Ontario, Canada prohibits height discrimination under the human rights code.[23] Victoria, Australia prohibits discrimination based on physical features under the Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.[24]

Examples of successful legal battles pursued against height discrimination in the workplace include a 2002 case involving highly qualified applicants being turned down for jobs at a bank because they were considered too short;[25] a 2005 Swedish case involving an unfair height requirement for employment implemented by Volvo car company;[26] and a 1999 case involving a Kohler Company informal practice not to consider women who applied for jobs unless they were at least 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m) tall.[27] Height requirements for employment which are not a bona fide occupational requirement are becoming more and more uncommon.

Michigan

[Wezil]

Ontario, Canada prohibits height discrimination under the human rights code.

I'm not sure why Mr Fun considers this a "rabbit hole" argument.

[MrFun]

I'm not interested in going down the rabbit hole of absurdity.

.

[Wezil]

How about this one -

You and your identical twin work for the same employer. Your twin gets fired for insubordination. You get fired for security reasons (can't tell you from the insubordinate one).

Is this twin discrimination?