3 ms·

> Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Question like these are pointless since they’re already solved. The American Law system already said

> Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Question like these are pointless since they’re already solved. The American Law system already said no at the highest point possible.

nostromo 4y ago
But that's the point. Employers are already quite limited in how they can disassociate with employees. You can divorce someone because they didn't want to have sex with you. And you can decide not to be friends with people of a certain race. But employers do not have those rights under US law. So it would also seem fine if you also couldn't be fired due to political beliefs. We already have a framework for dealing with these issues.
- livueta 4y ago
  I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain logical consistency, either both or neither.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Just to be clear, the implications of what you're suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti-Semitism in the workplace. Are you sure that's better?
    - livueta 4y ago
      No, you're right, it's a half-baked idea. There's got to be some way of slicing things such that freedom from discrimination is prioritized over the ability to use that freedom to implement discrimination, but I'm not seeing it yet. It does bother me that the status quo enables straight-up discrimination on the basis of religion, though, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v._Morrissey-Berru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v.... The whole broad application of the ministerial exemption thing is a perfect figleaf for arbitrary bullshit, laundered as inspired by faith. e: s/religious discrimination/discrimination on the basis of religion
      - int_19h 4y ago
        That whole "freedom of religion" thing is essentially freedom of speech and association in ritual trappings that allow it to go further than it could without them. There's no reason why it should be special-cased like that - we should either broaden these protections to all opinions, or treat religion same as any other opinion.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  That's not true. There are a very small number of protected attributes that you cannot discriminate against as an employer. Everything else is fair game.
int_19h 4y ago
It didn't, though. It's perfectly legal to discriminate, just not in a public setting. Say, if you have a coffee shop, you can't just refuse to serve non-white customers. But if you have a private coffee club, its membership can be restricted to whites only - and the club can then have a coffee shop that serves only its members. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me - accommodations are inclusive by default so you don't have to worry about whether a random store owner has a problem with your gender, race, religion etc. Yet people who want to exclude others from their spaces still have the ability to do so, subject only to social disapproval.

> Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? Question like these are pointless since they’re already solved. The American Law system already said no at the highest point possible.

nostromo 4y ago

But that's the point. Employers are already quite limited in how they can disassociate with employees. You can divorce someone because they didn't want to have sex with you. And you can decide not to be friends with people of a certain race. But employers do not have those rights under US law. So it would also seem fine if you also couldn't be fired due to political beliefs. We already have a framework for dealing with these issues.

livueta 4y ago
I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain logical consistency, either both or neither.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Just to be clear, the implications of what you're suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti-Semitism in the workplace. Are you sure that's better?
  - livueta 4y ago
    No, you're right, it's a half-baked idea. There's got to be some way of slicing things such that freedom from discrimination is prioritized over the ability to use that freedom to implement discrimination, but I'm not seeing it yet. It does bother me that the status quo enables straight-up discrimination on the basis of religion, though, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v._Morrissey-Berru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v.... The whole broad application of the ministerial exemption thing is a perfect figleaf for arbitrary bullshit, laundered as inspired by faith. e: s/religious discrimination/discrimination on the basis of religion
    - int_19h 4y ago
      That whole "freedom of religion" thing is essentially freedom of speech and association in ritual trappings that allow it to go further than it could without them. There's no reason why it should be special-cased like that - we should either broaden these protections to all opinions, or treat religion same as any other opinion.
UncleMeat 4y ago
That's not true. There are a very small number of protected attributes that you cannot discriminate against as an employer. Everything else is fair game.

int_19h 4y ago

It didn't, though. It's perfectly legal to discriminate, just not in a public setting. Say, if you have a coffee shop, you can't just refuse to serve non-white customers. But if you have a private coffee club, its membership can be restricted to whites only - and the club can then have a coffee shop that serves only its members. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me - accommodations are inclusive by default so you don't have to worry about whether a random store owner has a problem with your gender, race, religion etc. Yet people who want to exclude others from their spaces still have the ability to do so, subject only to social disapproval.