Politics and Religion

Actually the OP is correct on his core point
marikod 1 Reviews 873 reads
posted

that the government “does engage in race based discrimination,” although it would be more accurate to say the government passes and applies laws that have race based classifications. These laws are perfectly legal so long as there is a compelling government interest and the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

      And your perception of affirmative action is not quite accurate:

“Affirmative action doesn't stop those in the majority, it simply helps those who have been victims of discrimination before.”

      Um…no. When the SBA requires a contractor to grant some percentage of subcontracts to a minority owned subcontractor, that means that a white contractor of equal merit is denied the subcontract solely because of his race. Similarly, if a college faced with a white applicant and a black applicant of equal merit chooses the black one in the interest of diversity, the white applicant is denied admission. So affirmative action does “stop those in the majority.”

       In terms of the effect on the individual, affirmative action is simply the converse of  saying “we are not going to hire you because you are black” or “we are not going to admit you because you are black.”  So the OP is technically correct, although he then goes off on a confused tangent alleging the government is “racist” and is guilty of “hypocrisy.”

     The difference, of course, is intent – the business that refuses to serve blacks is simply racist while the government affirmative action program is designed to benefit minorities who are a member of class that has been the victim of past discrimination. There is no hypocrisy or racism here, simply a policy judgment that government programs should encourage diversity to remedy past wrongs.

       But, as to the white guy denied the government contract or the white college student denied admission, he is indeed the victim of race based discrimination, as the OP stated, albeit discrimination motivated by a very different animus

South Dakota State Senator Phil Jensen recently said that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people. In a recent interview, Jensen said that we should allow the free market to determine these things.  

That's right, folks. Businesses shouldn't be subject to federal laws that prohibit racial discrimination. Why? Because the free market is fucking lovely.  

This leads me to wonder: Should businesses be exempt from other federal laws? I mean, after all, if corporations are people, and people are subject to the law, then shouldn't corporations also be subject to the law? I guess not. Corporations should have the rights of people, but not be subject to the laws of people.  

Which leads us to another question. If a corporation wanted to start a business, where their business was assassinating politicians for the highest bidder, would state Senator Phil Jensen say that we should allow the free market to determine this?

Pimpathy595 reads

Informing a potential employer of your sexuality, is a choice.  

 
I wouldn't let Johnny Cocksucker, babysit my kids.  

 

... and what's up with the race baiting Willy?

This isn't about race baiting. I'm simply asking the question of whether a business should be allowed to break the law. And if so, what laws should they be allowed to break?

followme663 reads

the fuck-up-in-chief aka obama has broken the law many, many, many times and that is just in regard to obamacare. so I suppose you could say they are just following obama's lead.  

 
You're Welcome
2014 = GOP Senate and House

Pimpathy665 reads

The article was about LGBTX, people being discriminated against by business.

 
I simply asked the question. How can a business determine a persons sexual orientation?

 
They can't. Unless you, the employee, or patron of that business, makes their business known. Sexual orientation does not need to be present, in a persons public life. Sex has no business, in public life.

 
I'm discussing the article you posted. You are on some other topic all together.

 

I'm going to get some weed enhancement going. Maybe that will help me see your POV, in a better light.

"'If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them,' Jensen told the Journal, advocating for the free market's role in promoting civil rights."

Many business would thrive if people, who are intolerant of other specific people base on their race, culture, sexual preferences, etc., could count on not running into them.

GaGambler654 reads

just like bashing "homo's" is good for business in the Bible Belt. There is a huge groundswell in Texas for instance supporting the right of a business to refuse service to gay couples wanting to marry.

This is why I am happy we are not a true "democracy" or IOW ruled by "The rule of mob" as opposed the "The rule of law" it's also what is horribly wrong with WIlly's idea of direct democracy. If that was the way we ran our country in places like Texas where I now live it would be perfectly legal to discriminate against gays, and maybe even minorities because enough bible thumping rednecks want it that way.

JackDunphy661 reads

The government insists minority businesses get certain contracts. In other words "white people need not apply." Isn't that race based discrimination?

What about state universities? They accept minority students who normally wouldn't gain admittance on their own, thus bumping out a much more talented white student.

Now my point here is that discrimination is wrong, and shouldn't be done by businesses or the government. In the case of businesses, I say let the free market dictate. If a business is known to not let blacks, Hispanics, redheads, muslims, etc etc etc word will get out about those businesses and people will boycott them. I wouldn't frequent an establishment that discriminates.

But for the government to tell businesses they cant do it, while they themselves are doing it, is hypocrisy and total horse shit.

Okay, I'll play along. Suppose gov't ended all affirmative action programs.  

Would you STILL support that idea that businesses should be allowed to BREAK THE FUCKING LAW, just because they're businesses?

JackDunphy662 reads

And there is a difference between wanting a law changed and breaking the law.

Cosette616 reads

I get the point you're trying to make, unfortunately it's not the same. Affirmative action doesn't stop those in the majority, it simply helps those who have been victims of discrimination before...in other words, for the university example, yes it's true, sometimes a student is accepted to fill a quota (by the way, universities are not the government), same as a government contract, however, that is not the same as saying that whites CAN'T apply to go to school there, or CAN'T apply for that contract.

It just means that once the "prizes" are awarded, the winners will have to look diverse. That's hardly the government breaking the law.  

I am actually not a supporter of affirmative action when requirements are not met, sometimes it even hurts you personally, wondering "did I get it because they want me to be a poster child for diversity?" Fortunately I still succeeded and was cum laude in college so the thought went away.

Anyway, there's a huge difference in being denied a service and being at a disadvantage like you said in affirmative action.

JackDunphy525 reads

Pivate universities are another matter. But our positions aren't diametrically opposed, actually. I would end by asking when are we going to evolve to a society that is color blind, as MLK wanted? Let's judge people on their talents and their content of their character, not on their skin color, be they white or black.  

White America has moved drastically over the last 50-60 years on civil rights. Let's get some movement on the other side now. Let's get rid of the Black Caucus in the congress, the Black Mayor's Conference, etc etc etc. And no, I dont mean focing those groups by law to disband but appeal to their sense of justice and righteousness. Race based groups, to the exclusion of other groups, only bring America down and cause resentment.

that the government “does engage in race based discrimination,” although it would be more accurate to say the government passes and applies laws that have race based classifications. These laws are perfectly legal so long as there is a compelling government interest and the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

      And your perception of affirmative action is not quite accurate:

“Affirmative action doesn't stop those in the majority, it simply helps those who have been victims of discrimination before.”

      Um…no. When the SBA requires a contractor to grant some percentage of subcontracts to a minority owned subcontractor, that means that a white contractor of equal merit is denied the subcontract solely because of his race. Similarly, if a college faced with a white applicant and a black applicant of equal merit chooses the black one in the interest of diversity, the white applicant is denied admission. So affirmative action does “stop those in the majority.”

       In terms of the effect on the individual, affirmative action is simply the converse of  saying “we are not going to hire you because you are black” or “we are not going to admit you because you are black.”  So the OP is technically correct, although he then goes off on a confused tangent alleging the government is “racist” and is guilty of “hypocrisy.”

     The difference, of course, is intent – the business that refuses to serve blacks is simply racist while the government affirmative action program is designed to benefit minorities who are a member of class that has been the victim of past discrimination. There is no hypocrisy or racism here, simply a policy judgment that government programs should encourage diversity to remedy past wrongs.

       But, as to the white guy denied the government contract or the white college student denied admission, he is indeed the victim of race based discrimination, as the OP stated, albeit discrimination motivated by a very different animus

Cosette529 reads

I still stand by the fact that even if that white student is denied admission, he/she was still allowed to participate, same as when contracts were first budgeted. Being allowed to compete for a spot is not the same as completely being denied an opportunity right from the start. They are similar but by no means the same

DA_Flex551 reads

I have never experienced or seen a situation where a non-minority business has been denied an opportunity to participate in a 8a or other such designated contracted.  They may be denied an opportunity to prime the contract, but there are plenty opportunity to join a team where the contract will be awarded to a minority owned business. Furthermore, the argument that the majority is being denied opportunity is laughable.  The majority still receives of 80% of the contracts awarded by the government; still enjoys the advantages of being able to obtain financing more easily than minority business; that even some minority owned contractors still hire a significant amount of non-minority business developers to face with the government because of institutional racism.  By your argument, contracting advantages for service disabled veterans or plain veterans are not valid as well.

While my business does not have any of the special designators, I have never felt disadvantaged in the contracting world, especially when dealing competing with other small businesses, 8a or not.  Where I feel disadvantage is against the large business, who have the resources to game the system to eliminate or reduce competition.  The greatest threat to all small businesses is contract bundling.  This is a situation where govt purposely creates a contract requirement that only a large business can fulfill, thus eliminating any hope that a small business can compete for the prime.  

The 8a programs exists because there is a social benefit to having a diverse workforce; a diverse business community because it strengthens social communities and in turn strengthens the nation.  I never has prevented any business from being successful.

Posted By: marikod
that the government “does engage in race based discrimination,” although it would be more accurate to say the government passes and applies laws that have race based classifications. These laws are perfectly legal so long as there is a compelling government interest and the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  
   
       And your perception of affirmative action is not quite accurate:  
   
 “Affirmative action doesn't stop those in the majority, it simply helps those who have been victims of discrimination before.”  
   
       Um…no. When the SBA requires a contractor to grant some percentage of subcontracts to a minority owned subcontractor, that means that a white contractor of equal merit is denied the subcontract solely because of his race. Similarly, if a college faced with a white applicant and a black applicant of equal merit chooses the black one in the interest of diversity, the white applicant is denied admission. So affirmative action does “stop those in the majority.”  
   
        In terms of the effect on the individual, affirmative action is simply the converse of  saying “we are not going to hire you because you are black” or “we are not going to admit you because you are black.”  So the OP is technically correct, although he then goes off on a confused tangent alleging the government is “racist” and is guilty of “hypocrisy.”  
   
      The difference, of course, is intent – the business that refuses to serve blacks is simply racist while the government affirmative action program is designed to benefit minorities who are a member of class that has been the victim of past discrimination. There is no hypocrisy or racism here, simply a policy judgment that government programs should encourage diversity to remedy past wrongs.  
   
        But, as to the white guy denied the government contract or the white college student denied admission, he is indeed the victim of race based discrimination, as the OP stated, albeit discrimination motivated by a very different animus.  
 

IE: Truth in advertising law. The 'Government' and its vast bureaucracies have never had to abide by many of the precepts set by the FTC. Example: Military recruiting officer tells wide eyed teen he'll be trained for support in cutting edge communications and electronics. 4 years later young adult leaves military with a PHD in installing TV antennas.  

Our parents were lied too
Our parents lied to us
Our school system and teachers lied to our parents and us
Our elected leaders lie to everyone
And a private bankiing cartel called the Federal Reserve deceived our nation into economic (debt) slavery since 1913. Race baiting is just a straw-man issue to distract the masses and keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
 
 

Posted By: JackDunphy
The government insists minority businesses get certain contracts. In other words "white people need not apply." Isn't that race based discrimination?  
   
 What about state universities? They accept minority students who normally wouldn't gain admittance on their own, thus bumping out a much more talented white student.  
   
 Now my point here is that discrimination is wrong, and shouldn't be done by businesses or the government. In the case of businesses, I say let the free market dictate. If a business is known to not let blacks, Hispanics, redheads, muslims, etc etc etc word will get out about those businesses and people will boycott them. I wouldn't frequent an establishment that discriminates.  
   
 But for the government to tell businesses they cant do it, while they themselves are doing it, is hypocrisy and total horse shit.  
 

DA_Flex618 reads

These guys you are trying to argue with are best case ideological ignoramuses and worst case closet racists that wrap their prejudices around some sort of market based theory.

Pimpathy643 reads

I'm white, straight, and don't vote.

Posted By: DA_Flex
These guys you are trying to argue with are best case ideological ignoramuses and worst case closet racists that wrap their prejudices around some sort of market based theory.

If someone refused to serve his lilly white family.

Cosette617 reads

I'm a big supporter of free markets...completely free, no quotas, or tariffs, no complaining about jobs being shipped off if we are not the most efficient producers of something.

And I hate when something as beautiful (yes I find it beautiful) as free markets is used to claim stupid things. Free markets have NOTHING to do with human cultural beliefs and deeply ingrained customs and traditions. Free markets are natural in that they are: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.  

Nowhere in the definition does it say that they account for things like greed, violence, neglect, misrepresentation, racism, bias, blackmailing, etc. All the qualities that are in humans, and when those humans get a hold of those markets, they may not necessarily want those markets to be free after all.

His argument is flawed.

I reserve the right to deny service to anyone I choose.
I refuse to acknowledge ANYONE who isn't qualified for the position offered, regardless of gender, race, creed etc.

Walmart uses a 10 million question(aire) designed to allow them into the psyche of the applicant. You think that isn't invasive? Thus leading to discriminatory hiring? Good for them lol. I do the same thing to assure employees whom I can be around w/o aguing simpleton BS

Won't see fat men, black men, old men, young men, religious freaks etc. etc.

GaGambler683 reads

but a hooker is providing a much more intimate service where I think she has the right to discriminate.

A bakery not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple doesn't fall into that category IMO.

Actually I may go get a job run by religious pukes, you know  something like Chick fil A and then sue them after the first day for creating a "hostile work environment" It might be fun

Pimpathy627 reads

GaGambler, are the religious pukes out to get you, or are you out to get them?

 
Just remember to answer the the interview questions, from Jesus's perspective. That way, once you become a religious corporate insider. You could get CFA to bring back the SW chicken salad.

 
I'd like to see CFA do a Hala menue.

Pimpathy566 reads

a restaurant chain that sells different religious themed dishes, consisting of the many religions of the USA. I'd call this restaurant Jihad's, it could be like one of those themed establishments that degrade their customers with insults and put downs. Only the people degrading customers would represent the opposing religious beliefs of the style of cuisine you ordered

GaGambler631 reads

Most of the time I don't really think much about it any more, but once upon a time I was constantly subjected to these pukes trying to run my life. Coming from a place like the SF Bay Area  I wasn't used to having religion rammed down my throat 24/7 like they do/did in the south, and I was raised to respect the beliefs of others,  but finally I just snapped and started to push back.  I have actually run off Bible thumpers off my property at gunpoint and came dangerously close to punching one in the face after he kept banging at my door while I was in the bedroom banging my secretary, I wasn't going to answer the door at all, but he was so persistent with his knocking my secretary begged me to answer the door as it might be important. Boy was I pissed when I answered the door to a fucking bible thumper with a towel wrapped around me and he still couldn't accept the fact that I was busy.  If I was wearing more than a towel AND I would much rather fuck than fight, I am sure I would have kicked his ass up and down the block, but I did have to physically threaten him before he would leave my door.

So yes, in answer to your question. I would say it's a little of both. Bible thumpers invade my privacy at their own risk. If they won't respect me and my right to be left the fuck alone, I don't respect their right not to have their nose broken.

Pimpathy597 reads

I was thinking along those lines, when they provoke someone else. I feel they deserve what they get.

Next time get off your secretary, and let her answer the door. Isn't that why you hired her in the first place? or put up a  damn sign.

Register Now!