Oh, Please. Really? You equate anarchy with business freedom?
Not really. I'm simply pointing out that if you start from a radical, dogmatic position that "nobody should be telling an individual what to do with his property", it leads to odd conclusions. In reality, I think we all realize that an unqualified statement like this is simply a rhetorical device, an exaggeration, an appeal to emotion... trying to win the audience over by suggesting we are trespassing on a sacred right of individuals to exercise their freedoms, to live their lives as they see fit... that it all ends with us waking up one day in a totalitarian, unyielding, Orwellian state, in which we are controlled by evil governments, as was so colorfully described a few posts above... come on, guys, I'm not the one dramatizing. If you can go and make up stories, why can't I...
Let's be honest, in reality we all agree that individuals need to pay a price of living in a society that enforces certain principles for everyone's benefit... While we all agree, what I don't understand is, why you're insisting that businesses need to be somehow exempt from it, why it's OK for any business to do whatever it takes to survive. Are businesses really so threatened by non-discrimination laws... do we really believe that enforcing those laws has economic impact so severe that we, as a society, must re-think it and maybe sacrifice some of those principles for an even greater good... that we must give the business owners carte blanche to prevent that poor, endangered species from disappearing from the face of the earth. Again, if so, this sounds to me like a whole lot of drama... unless backed by evidence to support it.
Let me ask this. Let's say you don't like redheads. Really, there are folks out there that don't like gingers. Think we have no soul, but I digress. Let's say you are one of them. You going to go to a dive shop where all of the instructors are gingers? Let's say you don't like pink slime in your burger. You going to eat at 5 Guys or McDonalds? Hint: I haven't had a quarter pounder in many years, but a 5 Guys is some yummy stuff.
Obviously, you are not equating here things like, say, (a) an individual's freedom to buy a burger vs. a hot-dog, with (b) giving a shop owner the ability to, say, discriminate against Jews... ugh... after all, you were just acknowledging, yourself, that business freedoms are strictly distinct from individual freedoms.
some laws are passed with the best intentions to make a level playing field for workers but the laws are all but worthless when it comes to real life, as they are so easy to circumvent.
Of course, you're right that passing laws doesn't immediately change the world, and it doesn't prevent individuals from breaking those laws, but don't you believe passing laws has longer-term implications in shaping up the way people think? Most people do try to observe the laws, and try to teach their children to do so...
If you were to come on my boat, you'd find a real shortage of minorities in the crew. I have a Puerto Rican this year, but I don't know if they are officially minorities. Had a black guy last year, but he isn't coming back. Anyway, it isn't because I don't want any minorities, it's because only white folks apply for the job. Now, if the government made me have a diverse crew and regulated that, I'd have to find some minority crewmembers, regardless of their abilities to do the job. Would government regulation mandating skin color over fitness for duty make you feel better on a liveaboard where one of the crew might save your life in an emergency? Or might not?
I'm not in favor of quotas, actually... between discrimination and quotas, there are many shades of gray. What would make me feel better, in this specific scenario, is knowing that, you had hired a person who is fit and skilled enough to save me. I couldn't care less if they're Japanese or Swedish, black or pink, young or old... or whether they like to fondle with men, women, or stuffed unicorns.
Tell that to the FDNY which now allows females to graduate the Fire Academy without being able to perform the requisite lifesaving fire skills... Because a discrimination lawsuit says the City discriminated against women based on physical ability... Really? I don't want someone who can't haul my fat a-- out of a burning building working as a Firefighter. Plenty of women HAVE succeeded in passing the exam- THEY belong on the job.
I don't know the specifics, but I wouldn't be surprised that in some cases, people go too far. So what? Nothing, and nobody, is perfect. Does a single case of abuse discredit the whole idea? Some priests abuse children. Should we outlaw all religion? Some rape victims make false accusations. Should we take rape accusations less seriously? Of course not, so this is not a valid argument.
Point is, business needs to do what business needs to survive and prosper.
There's an implicit assumption there that discrimination laws (and I don't mean quotas, since that wasn't the case discussed in the OP) get in the way of hiring the right people, that it's simply not possible to formulate a job description that would filter out people who are unqualified, without being unlawful. I think most people disagree with that assumption, and nobody so far really offered anything solid to support it.
I guess people's lives are so empty they must create drama for others.
I do not think this discussion necessarily has to degenerate to the level of personal attacks... we can do better.
As for life being empty... I am married to a woman, who has to endure a lot, ranging from almost all successful people around her being men, through male dominance in discussions, to people sending department-wide emails that overtly assert superiority of men over women. I can see how all of that affects her self-confidence, and that gives me a certain perspective. If anything, my life is full of it, not empty... I have plenty enough of my own relevant experiences to shape my beliefs.
