someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right?
Why are you assuming that?
Am I wrong? You think that an employer is less justified to refuse to hire someone who has a drug problem than someone who has blond hair? If I'm wrong with that assumption then by all means correct me. But I don't think I'm wrong.
I think there's more justification in refusing to hire someone with a current criminal record, than refusing to hire someone with blond hair.
So we agree. That's what I was saying. Discriminating against someone's hair color is closer to the line between "things we can discriminate against" and "things we can't discriminate against" than discriminating against someone because they are a drug addict. Maybe I just didn't write it clearly enough the first time?
My point when I wrote that was that if we are to argue about where the line between "things we can discriminate against" and "things we can't discriminate against" is, we should be looking at things close to the line, not things far from it in one direction or the other. Hence, it's more relevant (I would argue necessary) to argue that sexual orientation is not like hair color versus arguing that it's not like drug addiction.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I mean, looking back I'm having trouble finding where you came to the conclusion that people were okay with discrimination based on height or hairstyle, etc.
But they're ok with discrimination based on drug addiction? Which kinda means my assumption is correct, right? Which is it?
Okay, I'm not following this. You may have to spell this one out for me.
I suspect you misunderstood my earlier statement and argument. Let me clarify:
1. I'm saying that discrimination based on height or hairstyle is less "ok" than discrimination based on drug addiction or felon status (I'm assuming we agree on this, right?).
2. Our laws do not protect people against discrimination based on height or hairstyle. Thus, while those things are "less ok" to discriminate against, they still fall on the "ok" side with regard to our current laws (I'm hoping that makes sense). It's not about "people being ok" with something, but our laws being ok with something. Currently, there are no protections against discrimination based on height or hairstyle.
3. This is in contrast to a small list of things which fall on the "not ok" side of the legal discrimination line. These are currently race, sex, and religion. So those things are "not ok", and everything else (including height and hairstyle) are "ok" with regards to discrimination under our laws.
4. The change being proposed here is to add sexual orientation to that small list of things on the "not ok" side of the legal discrimination line.
5. My point is that if you are arguing for adding sexual orientation to that list, you must show that it meets some criteria that distinguishes it from all those things we have on the "ok" side. This includes height and hair style. And since those things are closer to the line than felon status or drug addiction, those are better cases to compare/contrast. It's easy to find all sorts of things that are less ok to discriminate against than drug addiction, but we also don't prohibit discrimination against those things. Thus, if you want to argue the special status of sexual orientation, you need to show how its different than all those other things just on the "ok" side of the line.
I hope to hell that makes sense.
Quote:
You're right, they've obviously dropped the ball, going at this piecemeal isn't working. Perhaps we should just ban all but a very short list of approved performance related criteria?
You're free to make that argument, but our system starts with the assumption that we're each free to do anything we want, and then we place a small number of restrictions on that where necessary. What you're proposing is the exact opposite and sorta flies in the face of some pretty basic concepts of a free society. We should have to make the argument for each and every exception, not the other way around. And what I'm asking here is for someone to actually make that argument.
But so far, no one has succeeded in making an argument stronger than "because I think it should be this way". I hope you can agree that that's a pretty weak argument.
Quote:
If you want to know where my gray area is, maybe something said at a job interview that's not directly performance-related, but is strongly suggestive thereof.
/shrug How about letting the employer decide based on whatever criteria he wants to use? It's his money he's spending on potentially hiring that person, right? The alternative is a world where the government sets rules about what you must spend your own money on. Which, sadly, far too many people don't seem to grasp is a "really bad thing"(tm).