asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
Do your own research, I don't have the time to do everybody else's research.
OK, but I only asked for one specific example.
I take it there are none!
Do your own research, I don't have the time to do everybody else's research.
But, yes, the wording does further the progress toward fair employment and should be applauded.
I disagree.
If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.
I disagree.
If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.
Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?What would we do with a highly qualified serial rapist (out on parole) who would have to share working space with women?
Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?
When I was a solid waste coordinator for a city of 80,000 our sanitation department would be approached by the county detention center for possible job placement for men that would soon be released...some of them were 2nd & 3rd time incarcerated offenders...some of them were considered long term criminals with assault & battery/armed robbery/sexual assault charges that they were serving time for; but we {the administration} were never allowed to know what they had actually been serving time for...only generalities and that they had done their time and were soon to be released and would be needing to be employed with supervision.Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?
That probably depends on the employer
I disagree.
If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.
The thing that concerns me, is how Obama policies have really harmed
Blacks, Eskimoes, Christians, Homosexuals and even the Transgendered.
The unemployment rate is much higher than it probably ever has been among these groups.
Changing words on a website is simply a red herring.
Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?
I was responding specifically to the public sector, which is the employer in the case of this particular statement by the administration. Where the private sector is concerned, employers should be free to hire and fire anyone. Forcing private sector employers to hire, or not allow them to fire, certain individuals is a violation of the employers rights.
That would simplify things, no doubt. What would we do with a highly qualified serial rapist (out on parole) who would have to share working space with women?