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

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

And this is very true. If a business can limit their risk exposure 90 percent by discrimination - then it's in their best interests to do so. That's the harsh reality. Forcing them to take on poor clients will raise the rent for everyone - as the cost of bad tenents has to be carried by the good ones. It can also drive the apartments out of business altogether - in which case - no one has a place to rent anymore.

Really, it's in the best interest of the complex to rent to the best people. I can see a law requiring those who will not serve certain customers to advertise this policy. Then that would give all the people a rational means to make their decision. What happens to the business if the best tenents they have leave because they don't want to be associated with this policy? Then the policy will eventually change.

Lot's of business decisions are poor and irrational - but it's essential to understand why they occur in order to deal with them properly. The solution to this situation is to require the business to advertise their decision not to serve certain people.

[Kidlicious]

And this is very true. If a business can limit their risk exposure 90 percent by discrimination - then it's in their best interests to do so. That's the harsh reality. Forcing them to take on poor clients will raise the rent for everyone - as the cost of bad tenents has to be carried by the good ones. It can also drive the apartments out of business altogether - in which case - no one has a place to rent anymore.

Really, it's in the best interest of the complex to rent to the best people. I can see a law requiring those who will not serve certain customers to advertise this policy. Then that would give all the people a rational means to make their decision. What happens to the business if the best tenents they have leave because they don't want to be associated with this policy? Then the policy will eventually change.

Lot's of business decisions are poor and irrational - but it's essential to understand why they occur in order to deal with them properly. The solution to this situation is to require the business to advertise their decision not to serve certain people.

It's pretty hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's possible to be against anti-discrimination laws and not be racist. What you are proposing would make blacks and other minorities poorer, have less opportunity, and worse housing. That's just not acceptable to people who believe in equality.

I think the worst part would be to be a minority in such a country that clearly hates you. We've come far from that. It's much better to be a minortiy now. You are still in the 60's though.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's pretty hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's possible to be against anti-discrimination laws and not be racist.

Anti-discrimination laws are the very epitome of 'racist', insofar as they assume that we should treat some minorities differently from everybody else, and that some minorities need help to do the exact same things as 'normal' people. I'm talking about laws that let black students in with lower grades than asian students, because Asian students work hard and make something of themselves. I know hispanic folks that do the same. They bust their ass off and work and get ahead of the world.

I believe minorities can succeed, that they can become productive individuals, that they can score at the top of the class, that they can be the best of the best. I believe that a truly free market will be the best thing for everyone - because it will incentivize good behaviour and reward people for making good choices. If the fellow from Korea is off the boat, working his ass off, making money, getting up in the world and doing well - why shouldn't we expect the same out of the black fellow sitting one space across from him.

I've seen it - I work in that exact same situation - with a chinese fellow fresh off the boat just like me. Him and I are generally one-two for production every week. Why us and not the black guy right next to us? We aren't doing anything different. I've had that black fellow come up to us and ask us to stop working so hard because there would be less work for everyone.

Why are black people having 77 percent of their children out of wedlock these days? Is it because they are poor? That's just a cop out. When do we start holding people responsible for the decisions that they themselves make to make themselves poorer and worse off? Black people were better off when they got married and had kids and raised their families and kept them together. When they worked hard, applied themselves, got a job and went to work. Now, they get rewarded for doing none of that with welfare that punishes them for looking for a job, because oftentimes they get a better deal on welfare than they would if they are working. I know it - I've seen it and lived it the last 2 years.

And it's not just black people, but everyone in general. What tends to happen is you have subsidized housing and apartment owners required to lease to them. Then when the place gets trashed and starts to attract the wrong crowd, what then? The stable and quiet tenants vote with their feet, and leave.

What you are proposing would make blacks and other minorities poorer, have less opportunity, and worse housing. That's just not acceptable to people who believe in equality.

Newsflash, your policies have been in place for 45 years and black folks are worse off than they were when it started. At least back then they had a mom and a dad.

You are still in the 60's though.

Then why am I arguing that Asians and hispanic folks are doing well, and we should expect other minorities to apply themselves too?

[Kidlicious]

Anti-discrimination laws are the very epitome of 'racist', insofar as they assume that we should treat some minorities differently from everybody else, and that some minorities need help to do the exact same things as 'normal' people.

The only help that anti-discrimination laws give blacks is freedom from discrimination. Saying that we think they need help that others don't get it just wrong. If you aren't discriminated against then you have no need from anti-discrimination laws. But the fact is that blacks are discriminated against and helping them with that problem isn't racist.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only help that anti-discrimination laws give blacks is freedom from discrimination. Saying that we think they need help that others don't get it just wrong. If you aren't discriminated against then you have no need from anti-discrimination laws. But the fact is that blacks are discriminated against and helping them with that problem isn't racist.

Treating blacks differently than, say, asians is racist. Treating them exactly the same is not. Anti discrimination laws aren't against discrimination - they are in support of 'positive discrimination'. By treating certain minorities differently, you are discriminating against other minorities.

Really - they should be called 'discrimination laws' because that is what they do.

[Kidlicious]

Treating blacks differently than, say, asians is racist. Treating them exactly the same is not. Anti discrimination laws aren't against discrimination - they are in support of 'positive discrimination'. By treating certain minorities differently, you are discriminating against other minorities.

Really - they should be called 'discrimination laws' because that is what they do.

Anti-discrimination laws do not treat people different. Asians are also covered under anti-discrimination laws. It is also illegal to refuse to rent an apartment to someone because they are asian.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anti-discrimination laws do not treat people different. Asians are also covered under anti-discrimination laws. It is also illegal to refuse to rent an apartment to someone because they are asian.

Then why does affirmative action exclude asians?

[Kidlicious]

Then why does affirmative action exclude asians?

They are not underrepresented.

[Ben Kenobi]

They are not underrepresented

And why is that? Are they not as smart as the Asian students?

Why do black people need affirmative action?

[Flubber]

Hhmmmmm

The discussion has mixed some anti- discrimination concepts with affirmative action and I believe this is not productive as they should be considered separately.

Anti discrimination legislation simply makes illegal acts like refusing to serve a white man a big Mac because he is white or refusing to hire women etc. I generally support the purpose of such laws as they support equal treatment.

Affirmative action is VERY DIFFERENT since usually it's an exception to rules not to discriminate based on race or sex or whatnot and instead specifically PERMIT such discrimination if it's to the advantage of a disadvantaged or underrepresented group. I have mixed feelings about affirmative action.

[Kidlicious]

And why is that? Are they not as smart as the Asian students?

Why do black people need affirmative action?

Afirmative action is radical anti-discrimination. It's really not that different in effect, because both decrease underrepresentaton. The underlying justification is the same. All groups should be represented similarly in a democracy. You don't have a true democracy without equal representation according to population.

[Flubber]

Afirmative action is radical anti-discrimination. It's really not that different in effect, because both decrease underrepresentaton. The underlying justification is the same. All groups should be represented similarly in a democracy. You don't have a true democracy without equal representation according to population.

I don't agree

1. You mischaracterize affirmative action. It is permitted or sanctioned discrimination in favor of a disadvantaged group or groups and the effects can be quite different than laws which simply prohibit discrimination. In fact affirmative action would violate such laws unless specifically exempt

2.i don't understand your equal representation by population comment. Represented where.. Elected office? If so I disagree. I think we would have a beautiful democracy if we became so color and gender blind that it could happen that we have 100 percent Asians or blacks or women elected and the only thought we all had was wasn't that kind of neat.( iam not naive enough to think that this will happen in my lifetime). But my point is that whether it's elected office or a certain type of job or whatever, I would never seek representation by population. I celebrate the cultural differences that make Canadians the largest group of professional hockey players in the world and only can hope for a day when a current group considered disadvantage makes up a disproportionate number of lawyers, doctors etc etc just by chance

[Flubber]

Treating blacks differently than, say, asians is racist. Treating them exactly the same is not. Anti discrimination laws aren't against discrimination - they are in support of 'positive discrimination'. By treating certain minorities differently, you are discriminating against other minorities.

Really - they should be called 'discrimination laws' because that is what they do.

You are confusing anti-discrimination legislation with affirmative action. Most times the laws prohibit discrimination on a number of grounds with some enumerated exceptions. One of these exceptions can be a affirmative action programs which discriminate to the advantage of a certain group but affirmative action is not needed as part of the legislative scheme.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber - I made that point to Kidicious because I know he supports positive discrimination. For him, there isn't a distinction. For him the purpose of an anti-discrimination laws is to level things out. This is why you have quota based hiring, etc.

I've worked for lots of different businesses. When I worked in Pizza delivery - we had blacklists - people that we would not deliver to. If the lists were predominantly minority, would that be discrimination? Yes. But nobody got blacklisted unless they either failed to pay or they threatened a driver.

Discrimination isn't bad. A business wants to hire the best person for the best position, and they want to meet the needs of their best customers. Anti-discrimination laws - are well-meaning - but they work contrary to the best interest of the business. As such, they work at cross-purposes. If someone is a 'token hire', is that going to relieve the harassment they might get as much as actually being hired on their merits?

I'm talking as someone who is a minority - I don't believe the anti-discrimination laws are doing me any good. I'd be better off if they didn't exist at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's really not that different in effect, because both decrease underrepresentaton.

Ok, this is really important. What do you believe is causing the underrepresentation?