In a somewhat related story (which we discussed in chat several weeks ago), Washington, DC officials recently settled for $1.75 million with the family of a pre-op MTF transsexual who was involved in an auto accident. Emergency workers at the scene ceased treating her injuries when they discovered she had male genitalia. Although urged by onlookers to continue treatment, they simply stood around making jokes. The victim later died at the hospital. One of these fine emergency workers was recently rewarded with a promotion to sergeant.
I looked back in the thread. Previous to your first post, I see a discussion of whether or not the person in this case had the right to political asylum. Following your post, I see a discussion on whether or not employers should be allowed to discriminate based on irrelevant criteria (irrelevant to the skills needed to perform the job). I suppose that it was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:
Look back at the posts following ExTank’s post. Between his post and your first post people were still discussing the issue in the OP.
I’m sorry my point is unclear. I don’t really see any point in repeating myself any further if you cannot see what I am trying to explain.
Alright, Lib, let’s bring this back down to the real world and situations which actually do happen:
Do you think an employer should be able to fire someone who’s worked for them for several years with great success, because the employer suddenly discovers the employee had a sex change 15 years ago?
Likewise, do you think a landlord should be able to evict a good, longtime tenant for the same reason?
Apparently, you and I have fundamentally different ideas about what rights are. You view them as favors bestowed upon you by your chief magistrate. I view them as attributes of your being, bestowed upon you by God or nature.
I believe that any peaceful honest person — despite whatever tag you arbitrarily saddle her with, like “employer” — ought to be free to discharge her own property as she sees fit, and pursue her own happiness in her own way, including with whom she wishes to associate or work — despite whatever tag you arbitrarily saddle her circumstance with, like “public accomodation”. Perhaps she does not seek to accomodate the public; perhaps she seeks to accomodate people she likes.
you are talking about rights of homeowners and businessowners. not human rights. these are not the same things. ownership is a legal condition. businesses do not have human rights.
you didn’t answer, do you believe businesses should [or do] have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnic orign, etc…??
"Apparently, you and I have fundamentally different ideas about what rights are. You view them as favors bestowed upon you by your chief magistrate. I view them as attributes of your being, bestowed upon you by God or nature.
I believe that any peaceful honest person — despite whatever tag you arbitrarily saddle her with, like “employer” — ought to be free to discharge her own property as she sees fit, and pursue her own happiness in her own way, including with whom she wishes to associate or work — despite whatever tag you arbitrarily saddle her circumstance with, like “public accomodation”. Perhaps she does not seek to accomodate the public; perhaps she seeks to accomodate people she likes."
—Huh? Maybe it’s just because it’s Monday morning and I am still rather fuzzy-headed, but I don’t understand a single word of what you just said. Just—if you wish!—answer me yes or no and in simple English explain:
Do you think an employer should be able to fire someone who’s worked for them for several years with great success, because the employer suddenly discovers the employee had a sex change 15 years ago? Likewise, do you think a landlord should be able to evict a good, longtime tenant for the same reason?
If you want Dick and Jane answers to your questions, you’re at the wrong message board.
I have answered you plainly, and with an explanation of why I think the way I do. Peaceful honest people who own businesses should be free to hire and fire anyone they please {{{ for any reason }}}, unless there are contractual obligations in lien.
Businesses don’t have rights. People who own businesses have rights. If a woman wishes to hire exclusively Black Jewish people with one eye, you have usurped the very powers of God or nature to tell her she cannot.
dixiechiq: Businesses do not have human rights, business owners do.
How about this. Let’s start with the presumption that I can hire whoever I choose for whatever employement I choose to offer. I can aslo choose to accept any employement that is offered to me. If I want to hire my cousin Lefty instead of a “more qualified” candidate, why shouldn’t I be able to?
Lib is turning the question around. You ask, “What right does the business owner have to discriminate?” He asks, “What right do you have to tell me who to hire?”
A business owner can fire people for whatever reason they like, they don’t have to give a reason. I could be fired if I had an argument with my boss, if she decided that she didn’t like my face, if I dressed up in a way that frightened the customers, if I couldn’t do the job, if she had to cut the budget, if I stopped doing the work. Some employees are contractually protected, they can’t be fired without the employer paying some penalty. Most aren’t, they can be fired at will. However, we have decided in our infinite wisdom that sometimes the government must intervene in private business dealings. Certain classes of people are protected from arbitrary firing. Race, religion, nationality, etc, are protected. Being a jerk, dressing funny, etc, are not.
Let’s look at Eve’s example. Should a business owner be allowed to fire someone who had/has a sex change? Well, I can fire whoever I want to, it is up to the person who is fired to prove that they are in a protected class, and that I fired them because they were in a protected class. I could simply fire them and not give a reason. It would be perfectly acceptable to fire a transexual for any number off reasons: cuts in the budget, if they can’t do the work, etc. Also, in most parts of the country, transexuals are not protected, it is not a national law, usually only a state or local law. The city of Seattle has such a law, the city of Spokane does not.
Now, suppose that said transexual does a great job, and makes me lots of money. Why would I fire them? If I’m a bigot and fire them anyway, then I already get my punishment, lower profits. The trouble with these laws is that there are so many jobs that rely on intangibles. How can you set objective criteria for them? And if you could, why should I have to follow them, rather than my personal criteria?
So the answer to Eve’s question is, absent a contract, yes it is perfectly acceptable to fire an employee for any reason, just like it is perfectly acceptable, absent a contract, for an employee to quit at any time. That doesn’t mean it is smart for an business owner to fire qualified personell, just that they can. Unless there are compelling reasons for our governement to interfere, we should not interfere.
I think I will make this my election slogan. “I am voting for Nader/LaDuke, not only because I agree with their views, but also because by doing so I am usurping the power of God Almighty”.
libertarian seems to believe in the right of a business to discriminate based on race [or most anything]. if i’m wrong i expect to be corrected. perhaps you expect to be jumped on if you state that openly. gender discrimination is not so taboo at this point in time.
as for usurping the power of god and nature, i think the christian god went on record as saying something about loving thy neighbor as thyself.
Oh, fuck–are we going to have to sit through umpteen-million pages now describing what a Mean, Mean Man[sup]TM[/sup] Lib is, because people won’t be able to distinguish what he thinks employers and other people should have the right to do from what he himself would do and thinks is the best thing to do? If so, tell me now so I can not read any further. That kind of abject stupidity just curdles my milk.
Again I didn’t see that. I stated quite clearly that he thinks others should have that right. Of course that does say quite a bit about people’s individual personallity. What you feel others should and shouldn’t be able to do say a bit about yourself.
Again please point out (or even better maybe libertarian would) where we are misrepresenting his views. I’m pretty certain we are not. In that case the abject stupidity would be coming from your end of the connection.
I think I see what you mean. I did respond to the issue of discrimination raised by Tracer. I shouldn’t have. Obviously, the post by ExTank — the one that overtly used the “L” word, the one that Arnold did not assail — used up the allotment that Libertarians, lepers that we are, are allowed. I had forgot that we are allowed to express our views, only so long as they cannot be construed to represent how we see the world.
My lone comment, made on the morning of August 26, was followed by a query by Arnold about an hour later, probing me for more comment. Little did I know there was an ambush afoot. So now, lessee, one, two, three, four, five — well, let’s just stop counting there — people have addressed incredulous posts to me demanding that I explain myself or answer yes or no, but I — not they — have hijacked the thread.
So what happens? I say this: “Businesses don’t have rights. People who own businesses have rights.” And a person with a broken shift key twists it into this: “libertarian seems to believe in the right of a business to [blah blah blah]…”
All that remains, aside from Phil’s heroic (and much appreciated) effort to rescue me, are infantile abuses aimed at my character and my God. I’m done with those people. These pearls are too good for that.
For the rest of you, I want to state for the record that there are two things I don’t do: (1) I don’t discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation, and (2) I don’t presume to tell you that you must think as I do.
Well, hell. I’f Lib’s bailing out, I guess I can pick up the torch for a moment to ask a question.
Let’s say I dislike one-eared, bisexual, lactose-intolerant, left-handed Macedonian dentists (OEBLILHMDs). Maybe I have reason–perhaps my father was killed by a six-fingered OEBLILHMD when I was nine. Whatever.
Now sure, I shouldn’t judge a OEBLILHMD by its cover, I know prejudice can be bad, yadda yadda yadda. Nevertheless, I choose not to associate with OEBLILHMDs.
Should I be forced to invite a OEBLILHMD into my house? To marry one? Well, duh, of course not.
So why should I be forced to invite one into my place of business? Assuming I own the store and operate it, why should I not have the right to refuse service to anyone? Further, witht he same assumptions, why should I be forced to hire a OEBLILHMD?
I’m really not being faceitous here. I’m really interested in hearing some honest and rational (not knee-jerk, IOW) answers to these questions.
(disclaimer: I am not a bigot. Come of my best friends are OEBLILHMDs.)
Yes you did. You came in and posted this gem "
People should be constrained from initiating force or fraud, but people who are peaceful and honest should be free to discriminate with respect to their own association with other people using any criteria they please." Which in no way related to the discussion. It wasn’t even an answer to the question. If you had managed to maybe quote the question and provide an answer and then your viewpoint, it might have been ok. As it was you came in with an abstract point about your politcal beliefs.
**
Martyrdom suits you well Lib. Funny stuff.
**
Which you then failed to do, prompting Eve to ask you twice. It’s really not that hard to give easy direct answers to questions. Try it sometime.
**
Wow. You’re really getting into this whole poor persecuted me persona. I gotta admit, it is amusing.
**
Again no one, to the best of my knowledge, said that you do. What we have said is that you think it’s perfectly ok for others to do so. That, in my mind, is a problem.
I wouldn’t dream of trying to get you to think as I do. I might as well go and bash my head into the wall several thousand times. However, you have stated that it’s ok for people to take actions that you wouldn’t take. There are certain phsyical acts I would not do that cause me no distress when others do them (fisting). There are others that do (discrimination based on race, lynching based on race). You have stood up and said that it is ok for people to take actions against others based on bigotry. I have a problem with that. Personally I’m surprised it doesn’t conflict with your own personal religous morallity.
I’ll take a stab. Hopefully my pearls are good enough for you and everything.
**
Damn that sucks. My own father was killed by a OEBLTLHMD. I do believe we have to stop this menace of Macedonian Dentists.
**
Ok. True, on all points. Everyone has prejudices. And for most people it’s ok to a point. It’s alright if the guy sitting next to me on the bus doesn’t like people with big holes in their ears. It’d be better if he didn’t have a problem. But as long as he doesn’t infringe on my rights through force it’s more or less ok.
**
No. However, if there was a medical emergency and the only way the EMT’s could save the life of the OEBLILHMD was by gaining access to your house. I would have a problem with you refusing entry.
**
Because at this point your actions are having a physical and mental effect on the person. Also, discrimination in terms of denial of service is usually broadly based. If they can’t get service at your store, there are probably hundreds of other stores where they can’t get service. But, your point was for an individual, so I’ll return to that.
**
Again because you are denying them the right to work. Your prejudices are morally wrong. As long as you are a single person riding on the bus, those prejudices have no effect on others. Once they do, I have a problem with it.