Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 62 of 62
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    So the question for this thread is: Should federal law protecting classes of people against discrimination in employment be expanded and, if so, to cover which additional groups? Or should federal law remain as-is? Or should the list of protected classes be pared down in some way?

    I'm thinking that employment should also not be denied on the basis of political ideology, alcoholism, low IQ, natural body odor and flatulence, because those are all immutable characteristics of an individual.
    While discremination protects against unfair treatment of one's candidacy to an available job, labor remains essentially a market and employers are allowed to choose the best candidate to fill their position.

    It is perfectly understandable that someone with alcoholism, low IQ, natural body odor and flatulance would not be in the end, the best fit to join a company. Choosing the best candidate, thus, not the smelly and dense individual, does not constitute discrimenation but rather, objective labor market at work.

    Political ideology is not immutable
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  2. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  3. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    ... and employers are allowed to choose the best candidate to fill their position.
    But are not allowed to discriminate against people in many ways. That is what this debate is about - the exceptions to an employer's right to choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    It is perfectly understandable that someone with alcoholism, low IQ, natural body odor and flatulance would not be in the end, the best fit to join a company. Choosing the best candidate, thus, not the smelly and dense individual, does not constitute discrimenation but rather, objective labor market at work.
    "Perfectly understandable" is not an effective argument. People used to think it perfectly understandable to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability etc. How are the ugly, dense, and smelly objectively different in terms of rights?


    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Political ideology is not immutable
    But isn't it just as important to a person as religion, which is a protected class because employers should not expect an applicant to change religions in order to gain a job? Again, how is political ideology materially different?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 30th, 2016, 03:49 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 13th, 2012, 03:28 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 19th, 2009, 11:51 PM
  4. Expand the forum?
    By starcreator in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2007, 12:32 PM
  5. an abortion of the lesser classes
    By Bf55 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 31st, 2005, 11:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •