Unless it is a publicly traded company, it is difficult to know their hiring practices.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it is, but ONLY for places where being white was relevant to the core goals of the organization (say, the secretary for the KKK national office). Likewise, I don’t fault the NAACP for showing a bias towards hiring blacks to run their organization. Looking further, lifestyle restrictions for applicants are relevant for organizations promoting a certain moral standard (like Scouting USA’s restrictions on homosexuality).
I’m confused. You say that posting a Whites Only notice is abhorrent, but you want an employer to be able to hire whites only.
If it’s a small local company, ask around. If the company is particularly odious, I imagine it would come out. Heck, a small industry might even pop up, certifying companies that meet listed criteria, like ISO or UL etc
That’s all I want - let each private property owner do what they think is the right thing to do.
I find lots of things abhorrent. I do not want tio use violence to stop them. Consequently I do not want to employ the Sata as my armed agent to do it, either. Since it is my servant, I only want the State to use violence in those situations where I would use violence - protecting a life, preventing physical harm.
Because I don’t believe Jesus called us to stop sin through violence, but rather through love. Because I don’t want the full force of the government turned against me when secular society decides something I am doing is abhorrent, like refusing to offer health care to cover abortion or birth control.
None of these are cooperative. They all rest on a threat of violence against the victim and anyoen who tries to do business with them. The only reason the payment is gotten without actual violence occurring is because everyone believes that violence will be used by the government and that they can not win. It’s extortion, really. All government is force.
Some might not. Many will. Christ relies on it.
Agreed. But the areas we are discussing are not circumstances where the victim has rights.
You imply I’ve never been a victim of discrimination.
Can we really have it both ways? Opponents of AA say that it is discrimination, and therefore, should be illegal. Here, you are saying the opposite should be legal, that companies should be able to not hire people based on race. You can’t ask for AA to be illegal and at the same time say it’s ok for companies to outwardly discriminate certain people.
I still fail to understand how AA is violent or can cause violence.
Voluntary AA is not violent. Compulsory “fairness” laws are.
Companies discriminate for or against certain job candidates all the time, depending on how thier skills and personal style match the needs of the position and the atmosphere of the company. I’m against mandating using “natural” criteria unrelated to the task to be preformed to bias selection for (or against) who is selected, especially when it takes the form of a quota of hiring a certain % of particular types. In 99.44% of the job market, a person’s race, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or if they have custody of children is unrelated to the mission/goals of the organization. I think most AA practices in public positions (be it a job or an Ivy League admission slot) should be snuffed out, with the focus instead on ensuring selection policies are truly non-discriminatory rather htan trying to mimic an “ideal” target percentage somone pulled out, while a ban is maintained on discrimination clearly unrelated to the job at hand. However, especially for groups witha social activism angle, I think it is within the realm of free association for them to restrict their hiring to individuals who are intrinsicly compatible with thier mission.
It might not be followed as widely as you might like, but it would be followed, by some. The more the general population saw it as “fair” the more willing they would be to go along. By imposing AA or similar methods, you build resentment and probably perpetuate the bigotry and hard feeling much longer than it would havbe had it been allowed to die out.
So when do we start having soldiers start rounding everyone up for Mass on Sundays?
I’m sure there are. There are also a host of people who find behavior acceptable that we would probably both agree is abhorrent. How do you feel about being forced to comply?
So how many KKK CEOs are there?
I would sya much of that was due to the resentment generated by Reconstruction.
The court can give an order to freeze or take money from an account. If the bank does not wish to comply, then what?
No, there is threat to the bank to comply with the order or face the consequences.
Speaking from the position of having been passed over for a desperately needed job because I was not a minority, the AA solution stinks.
The thing is, bigotry does not die out on its own. Schools would not have integrated unless they were forced. Almost 100 years went by and segregation was as strong as ever. It took almost a revolution to make things change.
This Sunday sounds about as good as any.
There may be a bunch or there may be none, as long as there is even one who is in a position to deny basic human rights to a minority, then the laws are justified. An injustice done to one is an injustice done to everyone.
And none of the consequence are violent unless the bank foolishly wishes to make it so. It is a real stretch to say a court order on a financial institution is in any way shape or form, violent. The courts are there for the very purpose of preventing violence. There are no guns drawn, heads bashed or fisticuffs.
I take insult at this remark and want an apology.
Wow
Have you informed God of this insight yet?So what do you do when the same government force is controlled by someone else and you are forced to attend their service?
Remember it when “sexual orientation” is added to the list of protected minorities, if it hasn’t been already, and we are forced to not only recognize, but give preference to their marriages, etc.
This is insulting.
There is no right to a job, house or to be free from bigotry.
As long as it fits your sense of justice. Telling someone what they can/can not do with their property is also unjust, but you’d allow it.
Because of the hard feeling left by Reconstruction.
By refusing to take someone’s money and turn it over to the government.
The government used violence to suppress the workers (dogs, hoses, etc) then used violence to impose the civil rights (e.g. troops with rifles and bayonettes desgregating the schools). Government is force. Whatever policy it choose to implement it does by force- segregation/desegration it does not matter, only that the will of government be imposed.
It was when thery siced dogs and used firehoses and billy clubs on protestors.
You may be right, But it would be difficult to prove it in court. For example, how would anyone know for sure that the individual who got the job was of lesser qualifications than the one who did not get the job? Especially if the filled out information on the job applications were confidential material?
wcknight reply:
This highlights exactly my fear. There are plenty of people who would agree with your method and would place that kind of authority into the government’s hands. They agree with the method, not the application. Unfortunately, we have no guarantee that in the future all those who are entrusted with that power will use it the way you want them too. By granting to the government the authority to force some people to conform to your sense of fairness, how long before a new administration will use that same authority and precedent of fairness to force the Catholic Church to ordain women and openly homosexuals? Perform gay marriages? I will not be at all surprised to see it within my lifetime.