>You should be able to fire someone for any reason.
I disagree. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for being Jewish. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not voting how you want them to. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not having sex with you. There are a lot of things that you shouldn't be able to fire someone for.
(Std disclaimer: I don't approve biggotry, but...)
I might be repeating someone here, but the problem is that once you start enforcing laws against things like this you also give the other party the opportunity to slap employers with false claims of sexism/racism. Which in turn might actually lead to even rational non-biggoted employers favouring (other factors being equal) groups that are less likely to make such claims if the employee is fired. Biggots are not going to hire you in the first place, so who's winning here? Ok ok, in many cases the person who hires you is not the person who fires you, so (surprise surprise) it's not that black and white.
Maybe being a heterosexual white male I'm not feeling the problem first hand and that affects my judgement, but usually when thinking these things I come to the conclusion that laws written with good intentions to abolish all sorts of nasty things end up doing more harm than good (and no I'm not a ultra-libertarian either).
You can't fire people based on race, creed, age, or gender, and you can't fire them for not having sex with you. There are laws against those things, those things specifically, and almost exclusively those things.
Except that you will still be _laid off_ for any of those reasons but it would be masqueraded as some other convenient 'official' reason. "The cash is tight", "we are not growing", etc.
If you don't like Jewish people and it's your company you shouldn't have to work with them. It will only hurt you as you are limiting your labor pool to non-Jewish people, and this is the same for any other form of discrimination.
The only place that should not be allowed to discriminate is the government since they represent all people.
Freedom of association is the key hear, you should be able t o associate with anyone you'd like to and vice-versa. Now I'm of course not advocating any sort of discrimination, but I do think it should be allowed. Just as I don't advocate hate speech, but I think it should be allowed.
The problem is that if you discriminate against a minority, then you don't suffer from the limitation of the labor pool very much (since it's a minority). However, that minority can suffer greatly.
So market forces can't hold this sort of behaviour in check, and this can lead to the suppression of an entire culture, which is where the issue lies.
Firing Jewish people doesn't just hurt the bigoted employer, it hurts the people wrongfully fired, too! There is something appealing to letting everyone keep to whatever groups they wish, but historically the idea has led to horrible things for the shunned groups.
Agreed, it hurts everyone involved -- just as hate speech does.
As for the history of discrimination, I believe that the majority of it was actually codified into law. So, I don't know if we can blame individuals acting on their own. Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government?
"Irish Need Not Apply" was a common sign to see in America when there were a lot of Irish immigrants (Irish Potato Famine era).
> Has there ever been a group that was shunned where it wasn't codified into law/sponsored by the government?
What comes first though? The government is made up of people. So people have to have these attitudes first and foremost before it becomes codified into law. If the public violently disagreed with said laws, then they would be repealed as wildly unpopular.
I think that you are talking past each other because you have different value systems.
I've known plenty of people like dantheman before. They believe in and value the right to private property, which means believing that it is right to let other people do what you don't like with their private property. Add to that the belief that a personal business is private property, and you get the conclusion that no matter how much you personally dislike it, business owners "should" be allowed to discriminate.
By contrast if your belief in private property is not so absolute, then you're more willing to tolerate society restricting the free use of private property in ways that society does not like.
Different fundamental values leads to different conclusions. Even with agreement on the facts, the laws, and how bad discrimination is. And arguing "should not", "should too" back and forth will get you nowhere.
My house is my private property, I can invite whoever I want there, and can discriminate freely on sex, race and so on (not that I do, but I could) because the decision affects only me.
A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors.
Religion, sex, skin colour and other personal attributes are not amongst those and for very good reason, discrimination on those grounds affects the other party economically, individually and as a group.
In spite of all those rules there is enough workplace discrimination going on as it is, take those rules away and we're right back in the 1950's.
A business is private property and I can hire whoever I want there, discriminating on factors such as suitability for the job, education and other associated factors.
A couple decades ago, businesses in the US would have argued the same thing, claiming that Black and Hispanics are naturally lazier.
Think about a company like Walmart, Ikea (or any company you frequent that has a near monopoly). How would you like it if they suddenly don't like your race and decided to stop selling to you or allowing you into their "private" stores that everyone else can shop at?
Seeing how you come from a predominately white country, I can understand how you cannot conceive this to be a problem.
I think you responded to the wrong person. jacquesm is the one who thinks businesses should not be allowed to discriminate.
Incidentally you're wrong about the "couple of decades ago" timeline. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and the Heart of Atlanta case of 1964 upheld its constitutionality, and the Ollie's BBQ case of 1967 upheld that it applied even to businesses with little obvious interstate commerce (this matters because Congress' authority to pass the Civil Rights Act stems from their ability to regulate interstate commerce). So the basic issues were litigated 40 years ago.
That said, it is still depressingly easy to find people today who make the same arguments. They are just not legally allowed to act on them.
Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily.
And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.
I think it was phrased just right, there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply. You can like that or not but that's the way it is and it probably isn't going to change. A mans home is his castle, no matter how reprehensible his views.
And that works both ways, you can't be forced to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist either. (personally I'd rather avoid such people completely, effectively discriminating against the minority of white supremacists).
The discussion above has a 'scope', the scope is workplace discrimination. You can expand the scope but you can't expand it and declare a parent of the conversation of not addressing your expanded scope by poor phrasing at the same time.
there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply
You phrased it as though you support discrimination under the cover of private property. Private property is being used as a blanket excuse for discrimination which is being rightfully challenged in the US in situations such as this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1093375 There are obvious cases like this where the line between public and private is blurred, and at great cost to the welfare of minorities.
And that works both ways, you can't be forced to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist either.
That analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy is being able to choose to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist where admission was being offered to the general public except blacks.
You keep adding twists to your argument in later comments, it's a nice trick but it really doesn't work.
Birthdays normally are 'invite only', and as long as they are they are private functions. Birthdays open to the general public are not common (at least not where I live).
Open to the general public but closed to some subset (the people with red hair, people born on Tuesday and so on) are possibly illegal but as long as they are in someones private dwelling they have the right to toss out anybody for whatever reason so it's going to be very hard to know what the real reason is. In my country if I tell you to leave three times and you don't I have the immediate right to even use force to remove you, whatever my reason for not wanting you in my house.
Houses are special, they are not generally open to the public, and in case they are no doubt the rules change but that was not the example used. So don't twist it that way.
I am not adding twists to be nitpicking. The law is tricky, and many people try to abuse it to the maximum extent such as in the article I just pointed out.
A man's home is not always his castle. You cannot use it to break laws. At least in the US, you cannot:
1. Murder someone on your grounds unless in self-defense. If someone is found shot 5 times or in the back, you will be charged with murder!
2. Set lethal booby traps.
3. Smuggle illicit goods.
4. Having dogs fight like Michael Vick.
5. View child pornography.
Discrimination by selectively serving the public on private grounds, I believe has not yet been tested in the court of law, but this was the excuse that many private businesses had in the past when they decided to serve white people only.
It is worth pointing out that many workplaces are not open to the public either. So in both cases they are really "private except for a list of people of my choosing" and the difference is that in one case I am allowed to choose on restricted criteria and in the other I am not.
Members of the public may apply for jobs, but most will not be allowed to interview, and those who are allowed to interview will not be given the freedom to wander around the potential workplace.
The process is akin to the fact that everyone in the public is in my potential circle of friends, and once a friend you may be allowed in my house. But that doesn't make my house anything close to publicly available.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I wasn't being intentionally obtuse, I was just trying to state the case as clearly as I could and answer any objections/clarify any misconceptions. I agree often people fundamentally disagree about core issues, but it only manifests itself at higher levels.
I hope we didn't jump into the "should not"/"should too" argument.
I disagree. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for being Jewish. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not voting how you want them to. You shouldn't be able to fire someone for not having sex with you. There are a lot of things that you shouldn't be able to fire someone for.