5 ms·

I think the question can be generally answered from a legal and absolute morale standpoint, if you believe in such: 1.) Is the thing the person wants a general

I think the question can be generally answered from a legal and absolute morale standpoint, if you believe in such: 1.) Is the thing the person wants a general right? 2.) Is the organization important enough, that discriminating would mean, the person would not be able to adequately exercise his or her right? In this case: While freedom of speech is, attending a conference is not a right and he could always attend another conference. Conferences should be able to have an agenda (for example empowering minorities in tech) and that agenda could very well conflict with the believe of a this person. My conclusion: While different opinions are great, a conference can do whatever it wants unless it is the only (maybe state regulated) in a certain field. I have a similar view on hiring regulations for companies.

kstrauser 11y ago
> I have a similar view on hiring regulations for companies. Please explain what you mean by that, because on first reading it sounds like you're advocating something that is explicitly illegal under employment law.
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  I think the smallest companies should be able to hire basically anyone they want by measures they determine solely on their own. The bigger the company gets the more it can be told who to hire. I would even argue, that smaller companies should be able to hire based on gender/sex if they wanted to. I am for diversity and would personally hire diverse if I had the chance to, but if a woman decides to hire 5 other women to start her small business, even though 5 better male candidates exists, I am fine with that. There is no right to get a job at a particular company. Not hiring these 5 men does only marginally discriminate them and lower their chances to get a job, because she could only hire 5 of them anyway. In this case I would value the right of the woman to choose who she wants to pay for work higher than the rights of the men. What you should not be able to do is hire 100 female workers instead of 100 better male workers, because that way you would substantially violate their right to get treated equally and lower their chances to get a job. I know, that this view conflicts with protecting minorities in some cases. Even though in most cases the right thing to do is the better thing to do anyway. Rules can be bent if you have enough lawyers. In the above example, you do not need one: Just write the requirements for the candidate you want to hire. It is my opinion that when different rights or interests conflict in human interaction it should only be regulated if 2. from the parent comment applies. I can always make up some weird hypothetical scenario where a regulation could hinder me or someone else, but ultimately, my reason for this is probably just the love for simple systems.
  - kstrauser 11y ago
    > I would even argue, that smaller companies should be able to hire based on gender/sex if they wanted to. We had that and it was a terrible weapon against minorities. Fortunately, over 50 years ago we decided that this is a horrible way to treat our brothers and sisters and made it illegal. I, for one, do not want us to return to the Good Old Days where bosses were free to hire and fire based on irrelevant physical and political differences.

kstrauser 11y ago

> I have a similar view on hiring regulations for companies. Please explain what you mean by that, because on first reading it sounds like you're advocating something that is explicitly illegal under employment law.

allendoerfer 11y ago
I think the smallest companies should be able to hire basically anyone they want by measures they determine solely on their own. The bigger the company gets the more it can be told who to hire. I would even argue, that smaller companies should be able to hire based on gender/sex if they wanted to. I am for diversity and would personally hire diverse if I had the chance to, but if a woman decides to hire 5 other women to start her small business, even though 5 better male candidates exists, I am fine with that. There is no right to get a job at a particular company. Not hiring these 5 men does only marginally discriminate them and lower their chances to get a job, because she could only hire 5 of them anyway. In this case I would value the right of the woman to choose who she wants to pay for work higher than the rights of the men. What you should not be able to do is hire 100 female workers instead of 100 better male workers, because that way you would substantially violate their right to get treated equally and lower their chances to get a job. I know, that this view conflicts with protecting minorities in some cases. Even though in most cases the right thing to do is the better thing to do anyway. Rules can be bent if you have enough lawyers. In the above example, you do not need one: Just write the requirements for the candidate you want to hire. It is my opinion that when different rights or interests conflict in human interaction it should only be regulated if 2. from the parent comment applies. I can always make up some weird hypothetical scenario where a regulation could hinder me or someone else, but ultimately, my reason for this is probably just the love for simple systems.
- kstrauser 11y ago
  > I would even argue, that smaller companies should be able to hire based on gender/sex if they wanted to. We had that and it was a terrible weapon against minorities. Fortunately, over 50 years ago we decided that this is a horrible way to treat our brothers and sisters and made it illegal. I, for one, do not want us to return to the Good Old Days where bosses were free to hire and fire based on irrelevant physical and political differences.