So, in your view, if my workplaces is full of white supremacists who refuse to work with a black co-worker, the correct course of action would be to fire the black guy?
A better example would be insulin supremacists who refuse to work with a diabetic coworker, since mswas has declared that seeking the proper medical treatment for one’s conditions is a “choice” and therefore not protected under the umbrella of inherent qualities.
This is a morally bankrupt position. You can be fired not because you did anything wrong, but because other people are acting like children. Majority rules, minorities should hide their identities if they don’t want to be fired.
And in doing so they gave up any moral standing and simply went with expediency. They would feel free to fire someone for being black, or gay, or a woman, or left handed because of people’s inability to deal with it.
If you have no principles other then the majority dictates all the rules, anyone else should be quiet or go home, then this would work. It completely throws out the ideas of fairness, individuality, and responsibility. The consequences of this policy are far more disruptive then any single case of a transgendered employee.
You and Miller might want to take your strawmen back a few feet, I am about to celebrate 4:20 in Greenland.
You don’t actually expect a straight answer to this question, do you?
Yes, I have been arguing a case of utility not morality this entire time. I am not arguing that minorities should hide their identities if they want to get fired. I am trying to discern what the limits on tolerance are/should be.
Not necessarily, the possibility of riot in a society lacking equality or a lawsuit in a society like our own are factors that should be taken into account.
Like I said, I am open to a compromise, not arguing an extreme position. I am just trying to figure out how you decide who should be tolerated and who shouldn’t. Tomndebb addressed it a bit earlier. Talking about threat of violence, infectious disease etc… However, he also made a comment about the person causing the disruption. In this particular example it was Stanton who initiated the disruption. This is not a judgment on Stanton’s character only acknowledgment of the inciting incident. The question then is about what level of disruption an individual employee is entitled to make.
Explain how it’s a strawman.
The level allowed certainly encompasses an individual seeking the proper, officially correct treatments for any health problems he or she may have, regardless of how his or her coworkers feel about the treatment.
Again, I’ll ask for a cite on who disrupted what in this case. Got one?
I said cause. I did NOT say be the focus of. Stanton did nothing to be disruptive. No prancing through the office in tights and spandex. No hitting on the male employees. No banners strung across the door proclaiming “Support the Transgendered.”
To say that Stanton “caused” the disruption is to say that the first black employee of a previously all-white company “caused” the white workers to lose their ability to concentrate on their jobs. (In fact, from the limited reports I have read on the issue, few (if any) of Stanton’s direct reports cared much one way or the other and it was only the board of supervisors–who only had to deal with Stanton across a table at periodic financial reviews–who were acting idiotically upset. A survey of the community demonstrated 65% support for Stanton.)
I contend that you are arguing that even if you do not recognize it. Assuming the Stanton case is setting precedent, how can any transgendered person expect to change the prevailing system?
[ul]
[li]Can you perform your job?[/li][li]Are you performing any overt actions that impact your co-workers’ ability to do their jobs?[/li][li]Are you doing anything illegal?[/li][/ul]
You keep saying that, we keep disagreeing with you. If you follow that reasoning, an intolerant act by the majority can never cause a disruption. You’ve stacked the deck in favor of majority rule, with no way for the majority to be in the wrong. Can you give me an example of an intolerant majority opinion that you would oppose?
The difference between cause and be the focus of is a good way to clarify that.
What if the cause is say 5 people, and losing those 5 people would hurt more than losing the 1?
Dump the 5 bigots.
Too bad. Sometimes doing the right thing is costly. This is one of those times.
There are lots of jobs that would accept a transgendered individual today.
Alright.
That’s not true. I am looking at a cost-benefit analysis. I want to examine the effects on many different levels.
What I would oppose is not relevant. I would be an individual making a decision about a cause, which I do regularly. I oppose intolerance against homosexuals on a regular basis.
Bridget Burke, Kalhoun What if it hurts the ability for the municipality to do its work because it got rid of five people who know the system, where files are, and all that sort of thing. They know what forms are needed for what. So in the process of hiring and training their replacements, and while those replacements get up to speed the backlog of work puts zoning permits back months, it causes confusion when the garbage workers union threatens to strike, etc…
Is that all worth it?
If the five are being disruptive or hostile, they need to be dumped, because if they are going to form a disruptive clique and be hostile to one employee, they will likely do the same thing to any other employee, meaning the company (or department) will never be able to increase in size or get new blood to grow and improve.
(More likely, there will be a ring-leader, the severing of which will cause the others to give up their hostile ways, but on the off chance that you actually have five creeps in a six-person department, you probably need to clean house and bring in a better staff.
You have asked for my view and I have provided it. Now you appear to be simply poking around trying to find ways to create some way to rationalize the act of allowing innocents to be harmed based on the irrational fears of those who are more malicious or less intelligent.
You wanted a boundary; I gave you one: that person may be let go who causes disruption in your “cohesion.”
The secretaries/administrative assistants know the filing system & how to complete forms. Completing fewer reimbursement forms for those long lunches their bosses took will make their jobs easier.
If any serious problems come up, blame the bigots who were more concerned about someone’s apparent gender than their duty to the community.
Yes. Next question.
The notion that I am genuinely interested in the answers to my questions never occurred to you, or what?
I am not trying to ‘justify’ anything. I asked a question I wanted answered. I wanted to see how people would respond to the question. The idea that I want to justify bigotry is ludicrous. I have taken my line of questioning into the facets I was most interested in exploring.