or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HSLDA - new low - Page 3

post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoalaMama View Post
I think there are two ways this can be looked at. If you are a person that believes there should be no legislation on the matter of discrimination at all, which includes laws regarding discrimination based on sex, age, race, etc., then I can see the stance that this shouldn't pass.
I certainly wouldn't want to return to the days where people could be turned out of a store or restaurant because of the color of their skin.

But I see hiring (for private-owned companies) as a different matter entirely.

For instance, how do you prove that you weren't discriminating when you hired someone you really liked who just happened to be a straight white male, even though a more highly-qualified, lesbian person-of-color also applied for the job? I don't understand how you can prove what is and isn't going on in your own head.
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
For instance, how do you prove that you weren't discriminating when you hired someone you really liked who just happened to be a straight white male, even though a more highly-qualified, lesbian person-of-color also applied for the job? I don't understand how you can prove what is and isn't going on in your own head.
You take notes and have justifications for your decisions. Most of your decisions will never face any kind of challenge.

I'd be willing bet those challenges arise far less often than actual discrimination does.

And the reason that government steps in is to make sure that people who are at risk of being discriminated against can have some support as they try to earn a livelihood so they can , you know, feed their kids and stuff.
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by anniedare View Post
Clarifying:
You CAN be fired for being gay with that as the explicit reason in the U.S. Not that ENDA would change these firings, just the explicit reason given to the employee.
From my understanding, other discrimination suits don't hinge on the employer stating (verbally or in writing) that the employee's race, sex, or disability was the reason for not hiring, or for passing over for promotion, or for firing.

As a matter of fact, I worked for a company where one particular employee with legally protected minority status, was consistently able to get the exact schedule she wanted, and missed an amount of time that wouldn't have been tolerated for any of the rest of us to miss.

She'd made it clear that she knew what steps to take if she ever felt the company was being discriminatory, and the company just decided it was cheaper and less hassle to bend over backwards to accommodate her.

This leads me to believe that once a minority group has a protected status in the workplace, the burden-of-proof is on the employer if such employer decides it's not in the company's best interests to hire, or keep on, this particular person.

It doesn't sound like the employer is treated as "innocent until proven guilty" -- but rather that the employer better be ready to prove the company's innocence in the event that there's an accusation.
post #44 of 47
Of course, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people would use a legally-protected status to bully and coerce others. So maybe the story in my previous post didn't need to be shared. It's kind of fear-mongering, to focus on what people "could" do if they had the legal backing.

Still, I can see why it would be scary to private business-owners for employees to have even more suit-worthy causes. Most people wouldn't dream of doing something unscrupulous just because they legally "could" -- but then, there are always those one or two who do.

And if "Having Confidence in the Basic Goodness of All People" is the rationale for passing laws that might enable some to unfairly coerce employers -- that same rationale can be used just as well to argue that we don't these need laws, and that "most people" (including most employers) are kind and caring -- not racist, sexist, or homophobic.

I think the push for these laws is evidence that the advocates don't have total confidence in the basic goodness of all people -- and maybe (or maybe not) for good reason.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Of course, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people would use a legally-protected status to bully and coerce others. So maybe the story in my previous post didn't need to be shared. It's kind of fear-mongering, to focus on what people "could" do if they had the legal backing.

Still, I can see why it would be scary to private business-owners for employees to have even more suit-worthy causes. Most people wouldn't dream of doing something unscrupulous just because they legally "could" -- but then, there are always those one or two who do.

And if "Having Confidence in the Basic Goodness of All People" is the rationale for passing laws that might enable some to unfairly coerce employers -- that same rationale can be used just as well to argue that we don't these need laws, and that "most people" (including most employers) are kind and caring -- not racist, sexist, or homophobic.

I think the push for these laws is evidence that the advocates don't have total confidence in the basic goodness of all people -- and maybe (or maybe not) for good reason.

I wish Confidence in the Basic Goodness of All People were enough, but it's just not.

I have to wonder if those who are not in support of this bill would also feel so passionately if a bill were passed to make it legal, once again, to slap your secretary on the ass or to openly and unabashedly pay females and racial minorities far less than WASP males. There was a time, just 30 years ago, when women had on choice but to allow their male co-workers and bosses sexually harass them.

If, as the owner of a company, my husband felt that he should hire only women who were amicable to fondling and verbal harrassment, he'd be up the creek without a paddle if one of those women finally had enough and filed suit. And he'd DESERVE to be up that creek.

Should we make sexual harrassement legal again because we just believe in the goodness of most people and trust that women won't make up lies about their employers? Should we just trust that companies won't offer special perks to their white male employees while paying their female and minority counter-parts far less and witholding the perks?
post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Z View Post
As far as I can tell, the only thing it has to do with homeschooling (or schooling in general) is that the bigots would not be allowed to act on their bigotry when hiring people. Christian schools/co-ops/groups would not be able to forbid hiring "the gays" to teach their kids. Because, ya know, we have to protect our kids from catching "the gay".

As a homeschooler who is Christian and lives in the midwest, I get a lot of people assuming that part of the reason I homeschool is to protect my kids from "wrong influences". Well, they are right, but their definition of "wrong" is drastically different than my definition.
i am following the same line as you.
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigama View Post
I have to wonder if those who are not in support of this bill would also feel so passionately if a bill were passed to make it legal, once again, to slap your secretary on the ass or to openly and unabashedly pay females and racial minorities far less than WASP males.
Well, I can't speak for everyone else who has reservations that make them feel hesitant about supporting the bill in question. But I, personally, would be horrified if a bill were passed that "made it legal, once again, to slap your secretary on the ass..."

I'm not sure if male wasps are capable of doing the same type or amount of work as female humans (regardless of race or religion) -- but I'm all for paying an insect as much as a human if the insect truly is doing the same job.

Quote:
If, as the owner of a company, my husband felt that he should hire only women who were amicable to fondling and verbal harrassment, he'd be up the creek without a paddle if one of those women finally had enough and filed suit. And he'd DESERVE to be up that creek.
I don't think having concerns about the bill is in the same league as saying that ANY worker, male or female, should have to put up with fondling and verbal harassment in order to keep a job.

Quote:
Should we make sexual harrassement legal again because we just believe in the goodness of most people and trust that women won't make up lies about their employers?
No.

Quote:
Should we just trust that companies won't offer special perks to their white male employees while paying their female and minority counter-parts far less and witholding the perks?
No.

I also don't believe in trusting that this bill, if passed, might not make someone guilty until proven innocent, when all that person is doing is making hiring and personnel decisions in the best interests of his or her own private company.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at Home and Beyond