14 ms·

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 fa

by codexon 17y ago

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.

btilly 17y ago
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.
- codexon 17y ago
  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.
  - eds 17y ago
    Was the last time you checked thirty years ago?
    - codexon 17y ago
      Are you seriously going to argue the definition of couple and getting 5 upvotes for being wrong? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple an indefinite small number : few <a couple of days ago> Hint: the phrase "a couple" does not always mean 2.
  - jacquesm 17y 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.
    - codexon 17y ago
      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 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.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        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.

by codexon 17y ago

btilly 17y ago

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.

codexon 17y ago
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.
- eds 17y ago
  Was the last time you checked thirty years ago?
  - codexon 17y ago
    Are you seriously going to argue the definition of couple and getting 5 upvotes for being wrong? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple an indefinite small number : few <a couple of days ago> Hint: the phrase "a couple" does not always mean 2.
- jacquesm 17y 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.
  - codexon 17y ago
    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 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.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      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.