3 ms·

> I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice. You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who

> I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice. You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected". Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...). > Kind of an odd example to use to defend ... I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality. Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here... I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.

et-al 5y ago
Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check. I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that “it’s ok to discriminate against anyone who isn’t protected”. No, I’m literally not. In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test. For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class. Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not. Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved? Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum? Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  I worked with a manager who refused to hire a man who had, as his Facebook profile pic, a photo of himself holding a shotgun and deer. He was a hunter.

et-al 5y ago

Laws are delayed reflections of our collective morality (or more cynically, the morality of the elites). Here, the concept of protected groups are to keep companies in check. I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that “it’s ok to discriminate against anyone who isn’t protected”. No, I’m literally not. In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test. For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class. Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not. Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved? Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum? Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
I worked with a manager who refused to hire a man who had, as his Facebook profile pic, a photo of himself holding a shotgun and deer. He was a hunter.