How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[Kidlicious]

I'm saying that if people wish to cut themselves off from the best workers and limit their customer base, it isn't my place to forcibly stop (through governmental action) their slide into bankruptcy as competitors pick up the slack they leave.

Ah but the thing is that it's often in people's best interest to discriminate. An apartment building may lose other good customers buy renting to blacks who are good tenants. Similarly if a business hires a black manager who is the best qualified many may quit because they don't want to work for blacks. Discrimination is economic rational. It's just not fair.

[Jon Miller]

And contributes to future unfairness and abuse.

JM

[Flubber]

M

I wasn't critical of you on that point. As far as I can tell at this point your posts have been accurate and informative. Ben was the one making an obvious error.I would leave it to the market place as the loss of profit from failing to hire the best employees and or turning away paying customers should be enough IMO to keep most private concerns in line.

I never thought you were being critical of me.... I am relatively careful to qualify my views on the law and state the limits of my knowledge and I I am quite ignorant of USlaws on discrimination.

As for your solution, it would mean that a black family might never get an apartment or a house in a town that was currently 99 percent white and the local businesses in that town could equally refuse to serve black people as the economic drivers would not be present. I simply don't think your solution would work to end discrimination ever.

Currently I don't mind laws that say if you offer a service to the public, it must be offered to all the public. If you want to limit yourself, there are usually mechanisms by which one can do so by creating memberships or fraternal, religious or community organizations.

[MrFun]

I think you are just being facetious.

yeah

[MrFun]

Nobody hooked onto "chicken ranch".

Not even Mr. Fun.

sorry

[MrFun]

3. Private employers can discriminate in hiring against anyone based on virtually anything, unless they are a member of a protected class and the discrimination is not urgently necessary for the performance of their job. Hooters can refuse to hire an ugly male waiter because, even though discrimination based on sex is illegal, they can demonstrate that hot women are uniquely integral to their business model.

In other words, employees do not have the right to freedom of speech.

(and I don't know what the fvck a man applying for a job at Hooters has to do with free speech)

[giblets]

If a Republican politician looked at someone's Facebook (), realized this person was a liberal Democrat, and decided not to hire that person to work at their office, what have they done wrong?

[MrFun]

That Republican employer is punishing the Democrat employee's exercise of free speech, just as the city mayors have punished Cathy for exercising his free speech.

[giblets]

It's generally illegal for the government to punish speech, and not for private citizens to do so. That's how the first amendment works. If it applied to private citizens, it would be illegal to refuse to buy chicken sandwiches from people who say bigoted things.

[MrFun]

It's generally illegal for the government to punish speech, and not for private citizens to do so. That's how the first amendment works. If it applied to private citizens, it would be illegal to refuse to buy chicken sandwiches from people who say bigoted things.

Okay, so it was wrong for the government to take action against Westboro funeral picketers' exercise of free speech.

[giblets]

According to the Supreme Court? Yes.

[MrFun]

Fine, I concede to your point in the distinction between private citizens and government as far as the First Amendment goes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who cares if people aren't free to discriminate against minorities?

Let's take the flip side of this. It's your property. You bought it, you own it. Shouldn't you be able to run it however you see fit? Do you need a reason to decline to rent to someone other than your own desires however petty they may be?

I'm not saying it's the right business decision - I'm saying businesses should be allowed to make this decision. The market will reward the businesses that operate best. I don't believe a business that refuses to rent to reliable minority renters will do as well as one that correctly makes the distinction between reliable and unreliable renters whatever their colors.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just so i am sure i understand you. ........ If a bunch of employers decided to announce a policy not to hire black people, or deaf people or Catholics or registered Republicans ( in roles where these factors made absolutely no difference tithe particular job. .. I am purposefully eliminating situations where the fActor on which they discriminate would impact job performance in anyway), you would be ok with that? More to the point would you support that as being a necessarypartof a free country ?

Absolutely. Even if that meant I would not get hired to work for that particular person, or those businesses.

Is being a " free country " a good thing to you?

Very much so. Part of why I left in the first place. America's not truly free (and getting worse), but it's still a helluva lot better than Canada.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is somewhat surprising that Ben didn't know the relevant law on the subject before spouting off like this.

Hrm? All I said is how I believed it ought to be. I made no comment on the current law.