I am with the bigots on this one

[badmuffy]

This is like arguing that murder or theft shouldn't be against the law because "who am i to tell someone else what to do".. People are only garanteed freedom when they don't violate other peoples rights.. We as society decide what constitutes a violation of rights and we make these things crimes.. I guess the real question is not why shouldn't we legislate morality because all laws do that...It's why you think discrimination in the workplace doesn't violate someones rights?

[FearsEdge]

No, it isn't. At all. No one is under any obligation to give you a job. None. You are not entitled to one, and they are not required to give you one. So someone having bullshit, racist, or bigoted criteria for a job position does not violate your rights in any way.

[notfitforsociety]

It's a bit of a paradox. I want to be free but how free am I if everywhere I try to eat, sleep and work won't let me. This is why collectivist lay claim that they are protecting freedom not taking it away and they are right in this regard. What the collectivists miss is the question of where does it end. At what point do we stop regulating morality. Morality is subjective so who is to say what laws we should or shouldnt have. I dont know.

[NGOrchestra]

I wholeheartedly agree with Fearsedge.

Private businesses should be treated the same as private citizens. If a private citizen wants to hire someone to do an odd job for them and pay them $20, and they choose who to hire based on race, who are you to tell them not to?

[Proletariat12]

It's entirely in the place of the government to restrict business if they are detrimental to the state. That's sort of one of the the primary reason for forming a government...

How do you think morality progresses on a mass scale? Rarely it is a popular understanding, but 9 times out of ten it requires sanctions for later generations to be born into for their morality to be shaped under.

Like I said, nobody is advocating affirmative action. Just equal opportunity. You glossed over that point.

[FearsEdge]

"It's entirely in the place of the government to restrict business if they are detrimental to the state." I would argue that the government being able to dictate to private citizens who they are allowed to associate with and why is far more destructive than allowing people to make those determinations for themselves on their own private property.

[FearsEdge]

There are plenty of ways you can discourage bigotry in the business world that do not involve getting the government to step all over personal freedom and private property rights. Your heart is in the right place, but you simply do not seem to grasp the implications of what you are proposing. What does it mean to freedom if the government can dictate who you associate with and why?

[Proletariat12]

I think you missed the point of what freedom is when you declare this an attack on freedom.

We don't have the right or even privilege to hate people for who they are. The freedom comes in being able to BE who you are. And when somebody tries to fire or not hire based on their ideas against a type of person, then that business owner is trouncing on our personal freedoms.

So no, I don't think government regulation of equal opportunity employment is detrimental to freedom. Quite the opposite.

[FearsEdge]

"We don't have the right or even privilege to hate people for who they are."

Yes we do. I would never support the government attempting to control people's thoughts and opinions. Never. No matter how good the intentions, that is a very dangerous place to go.

'then that business owner is trouncing on our personal freedoms."

No they are not. You are not free to work anywhere you want. you do not have a right to be employed by this person. None. If they want to hire you, that is there decision

[FearsEdge]

their decision, that is.

[Proletariat12]

"You are not free to work anywhere you want"

That's not the point. Everybody has the chance to be able to present themselves anywhere they want and be judged on the same level as everybody else.

"Yes we do"

you misunderstood. People have the freedom to think what they want obviously, but bigotry in the business world is an activity that is not sanctioned by the freedom of speech. As it affects other people's freedom. So you don't have the right to hate somebody. Only a freedom.

[FearsEdge]

"bigotry in the business world is an activity that is not sanctioned by the freedom of speech"

It's a violation of the basic idea of private property. If I don't want to hire you, I don't even owe you an explanation, much less a good reason.

"it affects other people's freedom."

Explain how it affects others freedom, when you are not free to work wherever you want, you are not free to have any particular job. You are not free to not be fired.

[FearsEdge]

When does it stop encroaching on someone's freedom to not hire them? What if I don't hire them because they smoke? Should that be protected? How about if they use illegal drugs? They smell? I simply don't like them? When am I encroaching on their freedom when I choose not to hire them, and when do I actually get to make the decision? Do you see the problem? When does it end? How many behaviors and/or groups need to be protected? Who does not get protection?

[OlympicRudi]

I don't agree. though I do see your point.

However most of the discrimination mentioned is baseless, so to discourage it(Which is what the laws actually are meant to do rather than to a forced stop to it) is acceptable. Whereas you're right that any forced action is wrong.

It's more an attempt to get people to mix together & shed society's discrimination from ignorance. Without the laws there would just be greater separation & more racism, sexism etc.

[CalabrezSayZ]

Laws against discrimination are rarely ironclad, but they do help. People don't have the right to be racist just like the way they don't have the right to commit crimes. To invoke classical liberalism, one is free insofar as their freedom doesn't restrict the freedom of others. The government has a duty is to step in. You are, of course, welcome to disagree

[FearsEdge]

That is the way I feel, as long as you are not restricting the freedom of others, you should be as free as possible. That is why I think people should be free to be bigots. Not hiring someone or firing someone for any reason is not restricting their freedom, they are free to get another job. No one has the right to be employed at a particular place. No one has the right to not be fired. These are decisions that should remain with the person who owns the business.

[CalabrezSayZ]

Owners have a right to legitimately not hire, however why should demonstrable discrimination be permitted? This is my contention with libertarianism. No regulation from elected officials empowers unaccountable business owners to do what they please. Look at America pre-Progressive era, from 1865-1900. Child labour, unliveable wages, 7 day work schedule, and a multitude of other employee nightmares until the government stepped in (albeit after many violent protests)

[FearsEdge]

Why should demonstrable discrimination(in a privatley owned business) be prohibited? What right does anyone have to force that person to hire someone they obviously don't want to? Why would someone advocate using force(government) to stop this person from being a bigot on their own private property on their own time? I simply cannot morally justify it.

[CalabrezSayZ]

Fears, if one's racism affects others than the government is obligated to step in. Whether it's beating up a minority (extreme, I know) or limiting someone's opportunities unjustifiably it's still a restriction of rights.

I'm a borderline anarchist but I think this is within the government's responsibility. I don't think the free market is a supreme equalizer of the economy and rights. I pm'ed you a while back about something similar.

[FearsEdge]

I guess this is where we will simply have to agree to disagree. You think the government should step in when someone is limiting someone's opportunities unjustifiably, and I say that the person had no right to those opportunities, and should not act entitled to them. If someone else is giving you the opportunity to work at their business, or not, that is THEIR choice. They have no obligation to offer this opportunity to anyone, much less to everyone.

[Proletariat12]

"and I say that the person had no right to those opportunities"

You think equal opportunity employment is bullshit? Business owners should hire based on insecurities and bigotries? Like if the guy has a whistling nose? Or a funny face? How about if his skin is a bit darker. What if he has a strange birthmark.

All's fair in the free market, huh? That's your stance?

[FearsEdge]

I never said they SHOULD hire based on bigotry. In fact I said they SHOULDN'T. My contention is, they are going to do it anyway, and just claim legitimate reasons, making it very difficult to prove in the frist place, not to mention that it's not the governments place to dictate to private businesses who they are allowed to hire and fire and why. I simply cannot justify forcing a bigot to hire someone they do not want to. They don't HAVE to hire ANYONE, that is my point.

[Proletariat12]

But it's been demonstrated that it's actually easy in most instances to determine if a person was not hired based on bigotry or racism.

A modus operandi is the number one indicator, and the other circumstances take a review board usually, so it's up to the person who feels slighted to call it out.

"not the governments place to dictate to private businesses who they are allowed to hire and fire"

what do you want,a completely free market or something?Pipe dream. gov intervention is req. sometimes.

[FearsEdge]

A free market would be great, but let's start with the most basic of all rights, the right to private property.

[FearsEdge]

I must add that I really do understand where you are coming from, which is why this issue is very difficult.

[CalabrezSayZ]

I must say, I COMPLETELY disagree with you on this one. I live in Ontario and the Ontario Human Rights Commission is extremely helpful in employer practises. The way it works is if you feel you were unfairly turned down from a job, you can report it to and they employ simple tests (like comparing your resume to someone hired) to determine discrimination. Attack on liberty? Between the rights of a minority to work where they please and a bigot to discriminate, I think the choice is simple.

[FearsEdge]

I think someone has a right to work where they please insofar as people are willing to employ you.

[mattblackcat]

In the UK we have the redundancy and the race and sex discrimination laws that pretty much covers all disputes in the work place. Couple that with the Human Rights act to protect the worker from unethical treatment and discrimination by the employer in the work place.

As for these laws being unenforceable - in Europe as I imagine it would be in any legal system the onus to prove any discrimination is on the plaintiff and they have the right of appeal against any judgement.

[JerseyDagmar]

I can see where both sides are coming from on this issue, however I think the Anti-Discrimination laws are pointless.

I mean, I could still not be hired somewhere for simply being a woman. All the employer has to do is find a valid reason to not hire me and there you go.

[hanzo138]

I work with a guy who is totally incompetent, lazy, and has no measurable work ethic, but it seems he can't get fired because every time he gets into a position to get canned he pulls the race card. It puts management in a really uncomfortable position so they back down and it pisses everyone else off because he really deserves to get fired. I can see why those laws are made, but they really have undesirable side effects that make them utterly useless.

[xtcx2e]

WTF!? No, in my view govt has the obligation to protect individual "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness/property ownership".

Also its "equal protection under the law" no matter if u are gay strait atheist theist black or white.

You're waayy off. I may not agree with FearsEdge on this topic, but at least he has a good argument, unlike you.

[TheDon001]

I think you're missing the point.

He's not advocating discrimination against homosexuals or anyone for that matter.

He's saying that in a "free market' business should have the right to hire and fire whomever they like, since they will anyway.

[GoblinXXX]

If someone wants to cut their own throat by not hiring a qualified person based on skin color or whatever, let'em.

[rarrmonkey]

I'm with you, anti-discrimination laws are wrong, the government should be the only place that's held to this form of standard. although you said government shouldn't control private businesses and if you mean no regulation your wrong, an employer is responsible for the people under them and the gov need to make sure the employer is doing right by there employees (the motor industry turning over massive profits to directors and investors leaving the company unstable)

[fuzzycabin]

I think you`re way of the mark with this video. Free speech is the right to express opinions and ideas without fear of punishment; it does not give you the right to act freely on those opinions and ideas.

[FearsEdge]

Free speech is only part of the equation. I recognize the difference between free speech and acting upon ones prejudices.

[Mumblerd]

It does make it somewhat harder on the freemarket when legislation that protects minorities would go against freemarket values. But i have to agree on this one, The freemarket does need to exist in some form. Afterall, no freemarket, no data for decideing what the legislation should be.

Its starting to get to the point when certain groups are hired just so the employer is not accused of discrimination. Example: here in the UK, a % of the police force MUST be from minority groups.

[TheNakedAtheist]

I agree it's unenforceable, BUT where I live for example (Alabama) business would gain customers if they had signs saying "We don't hire Homosexuals, or Atheists", or "We don't serve Blacks" . They may not hire them in any case, but at least due to government regulations they are forced to hide their bigotry, and still are at risk of fines if that practice is exposed.

[jonatcer]

I agree fully, the government should not have the right to take that right away from a business owner. With laws like this into place, there is nothing stopping people frmo (Easily) suing the company who fires them / denies them employment, with them claiming it was done because they're _______.

[rja125]

Not a good video. A lot of holes in this one. Also, hating a bigot is hating someone who hates.

[FearsEdge]

please point out the holes, if you will.

Being a bigot is not simply hating. The best definition from a dictionary web site( can't type the address, stupid filter) in my opinion is : n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Being a bigot has more to do with the motivation for hating.

[Totaltwist]

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint.

[freethinker3161]

AGREED, it's to hard to enforce and if a business is discriminating against someone they can make that publically know and hurt the business that way.

[FearsEdge]

I wish it was as clear and obvious to everyone. The assembly meeting that had people discussion and speaking on this issue basically boiled it down to god hates fags vs. stop the hate. Both sides are missing the point.

[hunkamonkiman]

Totally, man. It's a faulty, eventually hypocritical system put in place for the illusion of equality in the workplace. I think upbringing has much to do with determining how someone works as an adult. I think that's where to fix the problem of hiring and firing as per race/sex/creed/whatever. There's not really an easy solution, though.

[5avan10]

Also, I wanted to add that if people want discrimination to end, there are already actions which can be taken without pushing new laws onto the books.

Don't like companies that discriminate against Jews? Don't do business with them!

Feel like you've been treated unfairly because you're an Atheist? Picket the company!

Educate the public!

Stand up for yourselves without crying to Big Brother and trying to get him to intervene on your behalf!

[FearsEdge]

My thoughts exactly.

[unhealthytruthseeker]

If I was really desperate for money and had no other opportunities other than crime to support myself, I would rather work for a company that hated atheists than turn to crime to support myself. Personally, I don't have any great attachment to principles, and view them somewhat pragmatically. Economic decisions should not be made by arguments of fairness or arguments about keeping the market free, they should be based only on strict scientific economic experimental data.

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Science and truth are the only things that matter. Morality, principles, ethics, these things are subordinate. Science can even be used to demonstrate which systems of morality tend to favor more survivability of the species. Science is quickly becoming the answer to all questions worth asking. How does the mind work, what is the origin of things, what are the underlying laws of everything, how do time and space really behave, what are we, what happens after death?

[xtcx2e]

I understand your arguement and think it is well founded, but i still disagree with you.

[iamorganon]

i'm with ya man. if i don't wanna hire some one cause they have big feet, fuck 'em, i'm not gonna hire them. They can start their own company for people with big feet. the list of discriminations will become as long as the list of our differenences, public perception and acceptance of people's differences is what needs to change, not federal laws demanding we be nice to each other. that's treating the symptoms and not the disease.

[FearsEdge]

I could not agree more. This glorification of "diversity" only serves to point out and accentuate our differences. I am not a bigot, and I don't like bigots, but it's their right to be bigots.

[sabboth42]

I get where your coming from on this, and I have to say I can see that as a well formed opinion, but I still have to disagree.

If you look at the history of this country, every change toward tolerance has been made kicking and screaming and fighting all the way. If there isn't some kind of consequence to oppose discrimination, then there is nothing stop it, thus reinforcing the ideal that there is nothing wrong with it.

[sabboth42]

Oh, and dude, Alaska? Kickass. I want to see Mount Denali so bad.

[TheDon001]

Its a nice, on clear days we can see it from Anchorage, even though its about 200 mi away.

I prefer the Chuigak range myself, its like its embracing Anchorage is a nice big snowy hug.

[FearsEdge]

But is it something that can be enforced, as I brought up? Not only that, but if I have to hire you even though I hate you because you are chinese, or whatever the reasons, why would you want to work for me to begin with? If I was a bigot and I was forced to hire someone too different from I, I could just keep limiting their hours, never give a raise or promotion, and you would have to have government come in and force me every step of the way.

[sabboth42]

There have been some successful suits against corporations that practice discrimination, but yes it is very hard to enforce.

No I don't particularly think I would want to work for a bigot, however, that's not something that one usually learns about the boss when first meeting them.

More specifically for homosexuals, one can't tell sexual orientation by looking at a person, for the most part. It is also something that one should not be fired for if it slips out later.

[sabboth42]

However, this is a very difficult issue.

I do know however, in governmentally sponsored employment, there's no question in my mind that discrimination shouldn't be present or applicable at all.

[FearsEdge]

I totally agree. Privately owned business is one thing, government being responsible for discrimination should be strictly prohibited.