A new policy

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Would you support the "Don't ask, Don't care" policy?

Yes
6
46%
No
7
54%
 
Total votes : 13

Postby Thousand » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:17 am

Wait a minute, if you can not hire the guy because he volunteers he is a gang member, can you not hire someone if they volunteer they are a KKK member, or an NAACP member, or were natively born in Japan? Can you fire a person for those reasons if they come up after the person is hired?

Could you ask if the person was a gang member if you thought the person might be a gang member?

In this case we're assuming the person does not have a criminal record because it would defeat the purpose of the hypothetical question is there were some other reason to not hire the person.
Thousand
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:18 am
Location: Austin, TX

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:11 pm

1000 asks:
Wait a minute, if you can not hire the guy because he volunteers he is a gang member, can you not hire someone if they volunteer they are a KKK member, or an NAACP member, or were natively born in Japan?


You can decide not to hire someone for any damn reason you like. No explanation necessary. No one is going to come look thru your applications and ask "why didnt you hire this person?" There is no goverenment agency , or law that allows that to happen.

IF however you ask during interview what his private affiliations are, ...and IF you don't hire him for any reason, ...and IF the applicant wants to protest that you used this intrusion into his private non work related life to reject his applcation, thus discriminate against him, he can sue. The burden will be on him to prove that that question, and his answer or refusal to answer was the reason for his not being hired.

Can you fire a person for those reasons if they come up after the person is hired?


This is shakey ground. depends how it "came up", don't you agree?
I mean, If he is "tagging" the walls with his gang's graffitti, its property damage.Fire the fucker. If he's recruting for gang members, he can be put on warning and told further actvity in or on company grounds would ensure his termination. He may even be fired outright for that, if your company has a policy against non company sanctioned recruitment on premises, which most companys do.

But, If he casually mentions to another coworker hes a member of a gang, and that coworker tells mgmt., there is no reason to terminate based on gang association.

Job performance is the criteria. If terminated soley for his gang membership he could sue for wrongful termination. If his performance reviews were below standard, and you followed the companies policy (or precedence) of progressive disciplinary action, then he'd have to prove he was terminated for gang membership. The burden of proof is his. BUT, if his performance evaluations were Meet Standard, or higher, he'd have grounds to believe the termination was wrongful (i.e."personal"), and as a manager you'd have serious problems.

Could you ask if the person was a gang member if you thought the person might be a gang member?


You can ask an employee whatever you want, i suppose.** But , in so doing, you open yourself and your company to scrutiny and potential legal action by the employee if he is later terminated and the performance (or seniority level in case of layoff) doesn't justify his termination/layoff. Thus, why would you ask?

** (Disclaimer: I'm not a labor lawyer...i only play one on the internet :) I am basing this on 32 years of business /hiring /firing experience with a Fortune 500 company. I suggest seeking legal council before following my advise )
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby Thousand » Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:22 am

Good points. That sounds pretty reasonable.
Thousand
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:18 am
Location: Austin, TX

Postby eFree » Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:21 am

dromedaryhump1 wrote:IF however you ask during interview what his private affiliations are, ...and IF you don't hire him for any reason, ...and IF the applicant wants to protest that you used this intrusion into his private non work related life to reject his applcation,

Well, you finally made a statement of substance that we can discuss!
Of course that statement 'non work related' you proffer as given. For a non ploletariat job and a member of KKK, I beg to differ.
Here are my reasons in outline form with supporting evidence from what we know about the KKK.
- - - 1) Part of my 'rights' as a free man I have the right to protect myself from harm, which includes reasonable suspicion of future harm. (as Jefferson proffers 'unalienable rights' regardless of how you may interpret the constitution) Based on this I have the 'unalienable right' to discrimnate from the potential harm of a KKK member for the following reasons:
- - - - - - -a) Their mission is to violate the rights of others
- - - - -- -b) They have inflicted significant harm in the past. Indeed, at this point one may argue effectively that merely joining a group labeled 'KKK' gives an impression that the 'member' willingly intends to support or participate in 'freedom encrouching' coercion This could not be said, for example, about communists or Islamic fundamentalists for example.
- - - - -- -c) If the KKK is not a 'terrorist' group, I am not sure who you would say is. Given the tremendous amount of attention to how we will handle the question of 'terrorists' may reasonably at least generate a less 'matter of fact' tone about the benign nature of such an association.
- - - - - - d) You have lost sight of the intial context of this question. Which at least in part parlays on the 'violently' anti-constitutional discrimination against gays in the military. At least part of that issue involves 'heresay' evidence. For example, when I was an Army officer (which I was) what should I do if I had strong testimonial evidence that a member of my platoon was gay? For me, it was a no brainer--I took an oath to defend the constitution, and even though I 'violated' Army statutes at the time, this was none of my business. In fact, if I happened to walk in on someone off duty butt f------ another dude, I still would have done nothing--even though I could have been court martialed. That said, you have to address the possiblility of unreliable heresay evidence. Indeed, you are correct, I could 'not ask' and merely make sure he was not hired. However, this is abhorant behavior-and likely how many atheists are discriminated against. having someone merely hear you are an atheist may sway their opinion and not hire you--we all know this happens. Thus, IMO, it is my 'moral obligation' with the KKK to clear up the matter and make it 'clear' that this was why a KKK member was rejected. Your very strong implication that this is okay on 'the down low' is myopic, in my opinion.
- - - - - - 2) The problems from hiring a KKK member as a manager start immediately, and a causal nexus is easy to prove--especially for a business.
- - - - - - - - - -a) For example, the member involvement could become more public (for instance he might be recognized on a news show where someone secretly videotaped meeting -- the member would have done nothing to 'flaunt' this-- but increased public knowledge, nonetheless, is almost a given over time.) As a result, an African-American worker, subordinant to the KKK manager, could confront the company and ask if they 'knew' he was a KKK member. Beyond the legal entanglements this could create (lest you say this African-American has no legal 'leg to stand on'-- I hope you are sensible to know this has no bearing on the implications to a company-- they still must hire lawyers, and potential spend lots of money to make this go away-- the potential for this is inherent in the controversy.) Therefore, from the start, a company has to 'manage' this KKK members 'management'
- - - - - -- - - - -b) A company could simply argue that they hope to 'groom' managers to acheive. As such, any manager is equally groomed to rise to the level of CEO. They could argure they do not want to have to make separate plans for a manager who would not ever represent their company as CEO. They could say a member of KKK as CEO could devastate their 'bottom line'. As well, based on your argument, you would have a hard time saying 'don't ask, don't care' does not apply to CEO.
- - - - - - -3) As discussed previously, constitutional law and corporate law are not the same. Presumably, if 90% of the population died, legal corporate 'entities' would still 'exist' complete with legal protections. Nevertheless, corporate laws are 'predicated' on individual 'rights' and 'responsibilities'. As such, a corporation is still a collection of 'individuals' with 'unalienable rights'... As an American through and through, I will be damned if I am going to let some fast talking New Englander blabber away and tell me I don't have a right to 'care', which is the origianal premise. Of course I have a right to care. And you can plead your case to the ACLU all you want-- I will not give up my 'right' to 'care'.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:55 pm

Efree said:
Nevertheless, corporate laws are 'predicated' on individual 'rights' and 'responsibilities'. As such, a corporation is still a collection of 'individuals' with 'unalienable rights'... As an American through and through, I will be damned if I am going to let some fast talking New Englander blabber away and tell me I don't have a right to 'care',


I'm sorry, you may have missed my comment to Matt / Sans Diety that I've dismissed you as a troll. Thus, even your most inane emotional comments will elicit no further retorts from me.

I do believe, however, that Matt specifically asked you for some proofs/documentation to assertions made by you in this thread, that you have yet to provide. This assumes Matt still cares after reading your above post.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby eFree » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:40 pm

dromedaryhump1 wrote:I'm sorry, you may have missed my comment to Matt / Sans Diety that I've dismissed you as a troll.


Oh, I see. Just because I am defending my position in an 'opinion' poll (I happen to be on the side of the majority) I need to provide 'proof' for my 'opinion'.

Yet, you in the popular atheist crowd and obviously a favortive of the Principal-- Sans -- can 'bait' me with these types of posts and then call me a 'troll'. You must have a rich delusional fantansy life.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby Sans_Deity » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:10 pm

eFree wrote:Oh, I see. Just because I am defending my position in an 'opinion' poll (I happen to be on the side of the majority) I need to provide 'proof' for my 'opinion'.

Yet, you in the popular atheist crowd and obviously a favortive of the Principal-- Sans -- can 'bait' me with these types of posts and then call me a 'troll'. You must have a rich delusional fantansy life.


I've banned exactly 2 people from this forum and for almost identical reasons. They were dishonest and counter-productive with no interest in expanding their own understanding of anyone else's. They continually refused to acknowledge points made by others and would simply restate their position with no justification or side-track the conversation off to other points where the same cycle would occur.

They were only banned when this became a clear pattern throughout many lengthy discussions. I'm not playing favorites and I'm not running around playing Principal by distributing punishments - I'm working to make sure that conversations are productive and that the productive members of this forum (regardless of their beliefs) aren't driven away because the signal-to-noise ratio drops dramatically.

On that note, I'll advise everyone to stop baiting and name-calling...I made a similar appeal when folks attacked Elman.

I think the problem here is that while you're offering a defense for your opinion, you're not offering anything new - nor have you addressed the relevant arguments and legal references that were cited to address the original point. The negative comments in responses are largely a matter of frustration (as we've witnessed so many times in the past) and you're not doing anything to discourage this, with the tone of some of your comments...

For example:

eFree wrote:Well, you finally made a statement of substance that we can discuss!


It's a little hard to chastise someone for baiting you when there appears to be a similar attitude coming from you - the implication being that every other comment by this individual was somehow worthless.

eFree wrote: Here are my reasons in outline form with supporting evidence from what we know about the KKK.
- - - 1) Part of my 'rights' as a free man I have the right to protect myself from harm, which includes reasonable suspicion of future harm. (as Jefferson proffers 'unalienable rights' regardless of how you may interpret the constitution) Based on this I have the 'unalienable right' to discrimnate from the potential harm of a KKK member for the following reasons:


Your rights as a free man aren't relevant to the issue of whether or not you should be allowed to ask certain questions when acting as a potential employer. There are different rules for the different roles. Point 1 is irrelevant - but we'll look at the sub-points anyway:

eFree wrote:- - - - - - -a) Their mission is to violate the rights of others


1. Their primary purpose was to oppose reconstruction. This has morphed into an advocation of white supremacy and the alteration of this country to conform to their ideals. This is not the simplistic goal of "violating the rights of others". It is patently absurd to oversimplify this as though the organization exists for the sole purpose of violating others rights. As if someone said, "Hey, let's form a group to violate the rights of others!"

They exist to promote their ideals - which we (most of us) view as being a violation of the basic rights afforded to all citizens. Our disagreement with their ideal doesn't negate their right to hold it. They're seeking change, we're opposing their ideal. That's it.

Their "mission" is protected - just as we would protect communists, socialists and dominionists. Their motives are, essentially, their protected beliefs and discrimination on this basis alone, is unconstitutional.

eFree wrote:- - - - -- -b) They have inflicted significant harm in the past. Indeed, at this point one may argue effectively that merely joining a group labeled 'KKK' gives an impression that the 'member' willingly intends to support or participate in 'freedom encrouching' coercion This could not be said, for example, about communists or Islamic fundamentalists for example.


One could argue that, but one would be wrong. Membership in the KKK is directly analogous to membership in an Islamic fundamentalist group. Neither of which has any relevance to an individuals ability to do a job or to be a law-abiding citizen.

We punish people for actions - not thoughts. To imply that mere membership in the KKK is sufficient to conclude that an individual is likely to commit acts of violence is - once again - something you need to support, not simply (and repeatedly) assert.

These individuals have an inalienable right to their beliefs, to associate with others who share their beliefs and to act - within the law - to promote their beliefs. With this right comes a reasonable expectation that they will not be unfairly discriminated against because they choose to exercise this right.

eFree wrote:- - - - -- -c) If the KKK is not a 'terrorist' group, I am not sure who you would say is. Given the tremendous amount of attention to how we will handle the question of 'terrorists' may reasonably at least generate a less 'matter of fact' tone about the benign nature of such an association.


Some members of some KKK groups have resorted to terrorist tactics. This reflects negatively on the members which is why there are only about 3000 current members, by best estimations. The Klan also isn't a single group, with unified goals and methods - it's a collection of a few groups and not all of them advocate violence. Unless you can demonstrate that an individual participated in or was an accessory, you can't judge him based on the actions of associates.

Please cite the last terrorist act by the KKK and explain why you think that this is sufficient to disqualify every current member, otherwise qualified, from employment.

eFree wrote:- - - - - - d) ---snipped--- having someone merely hear you are an atheist may sway their opinion and not hire you--we all know this happens. Thus, IMO, it is my 'moral obligation' with the KKK to clear up the matter and make it 'clear' that this was why a KKK member was rejected. Your very strong implication that this is okay on 'the down low' is myopic, in my opinion.


Correct, you have the duty to demonstrate how your rejection of a KKK member is based on more than the rejection of an atheist. I don't see that you've done that. What I see, repeatedly, is unjustified bigotry. You see the KKK as a despicable group with despicable goals and tactics - in general, I agree. You don't care that they're operating legally, that their views are protected or that your perception of them, with regard to risk assessment, is unfounded - here, we disagree.

This is the reason you're not allowed to ask the question or act on the information - because the contrast in personal views prevents you from fairly assessing the candidate.

eFree wrote:- - - - - - 2) The problems from hiring a KKK member as a manager start immediately, and a causal nexus is easy to prove--especially for a business.


Ok, prove it...

eFree wrote:- - - - - - - - - -a) For example, the member involvement could become more public


Or...it couldn't. You have the responsibility of demonstrating that there's a significant risk that this would happen - and then you have the added responsibility of demonstrating that this damages your business in a way that trumps the rights of the individual.

I'm about as public as an atheist can be. Some potential employer could believe that there was a risk that this might become an issue - that I might become even more public. They might even be able to analyze what probable risks this may present to the company. Should they be allowed to disqualify me, based on these assumption?

In the end, they'd be disqualifying me because my off-duty activities are unpopular - which is precisely why they're protected. We don't have to protect popular speech.

You could make this same argument for almost anything, and that's what makes it useless. Someone's drunkenness could become more public, they might start spouting anti-semitic comments like Mel Gibson. Someone could march in a Gay pride parade, be seen on the evening news, french-kissing someone of the same sex with their hands down each other's pants. Likewise a straight couple may display similar acts of public affection at, let's say, Mardi Gras, with similar problems arising.

Any of these *might* happen. Any of them *might* represent a PR problem or other risk to the company. The entire purpose of these restrictions is to prevent you from acting on "might" and "maybe" - you must demonstrate real risk, not suspicion of risk...and in some cases, even a real risk isn't enough. In the gay pride parade example, you still may not have justification to fire them. It depends on how this effects their actual job.

eFree wrote:(for instance he might be recognized on a news show where someone secretly videotaped meeting -- the member would have done nothing to 'flaunt' this-- but increased public knowledge, nonetheless, is almost a given over time.) As a result, an African-American worker, subordinant to the KKK manager, could confront the company and ask if they 'knew' he was a KKK member.


Which, of course, is irrelevant. Is he doing the job, without causing problems in the workplace? If the only way this African-American was able to discover that he worked with a racist was to see him on the news, one could clearly argue that he'd successfully managed to keep his personal views out of the workplace.

In this scenario, the KKK member is in the right and protected. The employer has a duty to explain to the African-American that what he does in his personal time is his business and only problems in the work place will be addressed. I suppose he could sue...as you point out:

eFree wrote:Beyond the legal entanglements this could create (lest you say this African-American has no legal 'leg to stand on'-- I hope you are sensible to know this has no bearing on the implications to a company-- they still must hire lawyers, and potential spend lots of money to make this go away-- the potential for this is inherent in the controversy.) Therefore, from the start, a company has to 'manage' this KKK members 'management'.


Sorry, this doesn't fly. Any company could face a similar suit by an employer for any number of reasons - we're talking about what legal rights one has for discrimination. If the fear of a possible lawsuit were sufficient to disqualify an employee with an unpopular belief - no one would be working.

Additionally, now you're not just trying to disqualify someone for what they might do - you're trying to disqualify someone for what someone else might do, if they do it.

You're getting farther and farther away from rational justification and simply spinning 'chicken-little' hypotheticals to rationalize the conclusion you've already come to: folks like those KKK guys shouldn't be employed above the janitor level.

eFree wrote:- - - - - -- - - - -b) A company could simply argue that they hope to 'groom' managers to acheive. As such, any manager is equally groomed to rise to the level of CEO. They could argure they do not want to have to make separate plans for a manager who would not ever represent their company as CEO. They could say a member of KKK as CEO could devastate their 'bottom line'. As well, based on your argument, you would have a hard time saying 'don't ask, don't care' does not apply to CEO.


Same point. We're talking about protected rights here - not criminal actions. If the employee commits a crime, whether motivated by membership in the KKK or their pro-life club - that's actionable. Their mere membership in the organization is not.

You can present as many "what if" and "sky is falling" scenarios you want. None of them change the law - and none of them counter the basic protections afforded by the First Amendment and the extension of those protections to potential employees.

eFree wrote:- - - - - - -3) As discussed previously, constitutional law and corporate law are not the same.


Irrelevant. Corporations cannot violate the protected rights of the individual. If anything, these laws have been continually honed to be more protective of the rights of the individual in order to prevent unwarranted discrimination.

eFree wrote: Presumably, if 90% of the population died, legal corporate 'entities' would still 'exist' complete with legal protections. Nevertheless, corporate laws are 'predicated' on individual 'rights' and 'responsibilities'. As such, a corporation is still a collection of 'individuals' with 'unalienable rights'... As an American through and through, I will be damned if I am going to let some fast talking New Englander blabber away and tell me I don't have a right to 'care', which is the origianal premise. Of course I have a right to care. And you can plead your case to the ACLU all you want-- I will not give up my 'right' to 'care'.


Care all you want. We're talking about what right you have to ACT. If your actions violate the constitutionally protected rights of another - you're in the wrong.

It's patently absurd that you're characterizing this as an argument about whether or not you can care.

You've offered nothing new here, just a rephrasing of things you've said before - and you've not countered a single point made in the discussion. Your arguments miss the point, they rely on bigotry and fear-mongering and your final appeals make it clear that your bigotry extends beyond this issue and is rooted in emotion and ignorance.

As another "American through and through", I'm happy to listen to the "blabber" of "fast talking New Englanders" or anyone else. If their arguments are supported by evidence and reason, I'll agree. If their arguments support the rights protected by our Constitution, I'll agree. If, however, they simply repeat assertions and demonstrate fear-based bigotry, I'll have to disagree.

Am I fan of the KKK? Nope, not at all. I think they're ignorant bigots. But I also understand that their rights are protected, that they're largely irrelevant, and that membership doesn't guarantee criminal behavior. You're comfortable painting them all with one brush - and I'd agree, but the brush is "ignorant bigot" not "violent criminal who is a sufficient risk to deny employment beyond janitor".

Returning to the first point, about playing favorites and being the Principal - you're in no danger of being reprimanded or banned. The thought had never crossed my mind.

I would prefer that you actually offer something more than assertion and personal opinion to support your view...but I recognize that we're talking about opinions here, and that may not be possible. We may be talking past each other, we may simply disagree. That's all fine.

But, at this point, unless there's something new offered, I don't see where further conversation on this topic is going to be productive. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

If your argument is, as it often appears to be, that your personal views trump Constitutionally protected rights - you're unlikely to do so.

-Matt
Sans_Deity
Iron Chariots Admin
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: Austin, Tx

Postby eFree » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:25 am

Our disagreement, IMHO, boils down to two views that diverge and I will highlight from two of your statements-- they involve as well who has the 'burden of proof', which we also disagree.
1) you wrote
Sans_Deity wrote: Your rights as a free man aren't relevant to the issue of whether or not you should be allowed to ask certain questions when acting as a potential employer.
I have a deontologic view of 'freedom' -- as such it is unalienable and in stark contradiction of your claim always 'relevant'. Laws cannot take away this freedom. I do not have the 'burden of proof' to 'prove' I can ACT to protect my freedom. You can claim I violate a KKK persons freedom more than he does mine. You may have a legitimate case. But, you nevertheless have a 'case'. You have no proof that I would not win this argument in a court of law. I am confident I would. Nonetheless, it is based on my 'opinion' based on real evidence.

2) You continue to write,
If the fear of a possible lawsuit were sufficient to disqualify an employee with an unpopular belief
I think we can all agree that the act of joining a group is an ACT not a 'belief'-- Indeed, you have never heard me suggest not hiring a bigger more racist SOB with these 'beliefs' who has not ACTED on them by joining the KKK.

We could argue whether this ACT threatens my freedom. I welcome that argument. Regardless, I always have the right to care- the language of the original pole. I have no way of giving up this right-- i have it 'inherently' as an individual regardless of the law.

Thankfully, I still have some legal backing to ACT as a free man, and I am optimistic my countryman would agree with me if it ever was litigated in a legal forum. Freedom loving American tend to hate bullies and terrorists-- that is how I see it.

Your defense of the benign nature of the KKK, IMO, would fall flat in a court of law.

One last point. You suggest your public 'atheism' has a direct comparison to this matter. I strongly disagree. Indeed, I could argue accepting the label 'KKK' is threatening. This has legal precedent in use of confederate flag or more recently in putting a noose on a tree. This is always subjective. The question is does this perception warrant a conclusion of threat-- with KKK, I think the answer is yed-- with atheism I beleve it is no. As well, your question of 'the last violent act' of the KKK could not be more irrelevant -- they are not trying to 'rehabilitate' their image. Their past violence- no matter how lnog ago in a long way from being removed from their title KKK.
-
Last edited by eFree on Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby Sans_Deity » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:14 am

eFree wrote:I have a deontologic view of 'freedom' -- as such it is unalienable and in stark contradiction of your claim always 'relevant'. Laws cannot take away this freedom. I do not have the 'burden of proof' to 'prove' I can ACT to protect my freedom.


Again, we're not talking about what you CAN do, we're talking about what you can LEGALLY do. So it appears that my closing comment was correct - your position is that your personal opinions trump the law. You can only find agreement here if you can demonstrate why the law should change: essentially, you need to show that the change is better for society and not just for you.

eFree wrote:You can claim I violate a KKK persons freedom more than he does mine. You may have a legitimate case. But, you nevertheless have a 'case'. You have no proof that I would not win this argument in a court of law. I am confident I would. Nonetheless, it is based on my 'opinion' based on real evidence.


While you may be able to convince a jury, there's no good legal reason to think that you could ultimately win this case. The law is not on your side and you'd need to make a compelling case for why it should be changed.

What real evidence is your opinion based on? Can you cite some relevant case law that would support your case?

eFree wrote:2) You continue to write,
If the fear of a possible lawsuit were sufficient to disqualify an employee with an unpopular belief
I think we can all agree that the act of joining a group is an ACT not a 'belief'-- Indeed, you have never heard me suggest not hiring a bigger more racist SOB with these 'beliefs' who has not ACTED on them by joining the KKK.


This is nonsense. The "act" of joining a group is not an actionable "act". As I said, this act is legal and it is protected. I fail to understand why you keep coming back to this nonsensical argument about "act" vs. "belief".

And why you keep ignoring every relevant point requesting that you demonstrate how the mere "act" of associating with people who share your beliefs is sufficient grounds to support your discrimination.

eFree wrote:We could argue whether this ACT threatens my freedom. I welcome that argument.


Then I wish you'd finally support it...I'm sure we've hit this point several times.

eFree wrote:Thankfully, I still have some legal backing to ACT as a free man, and I am optimistic my countryman would agree with me if it ever was litigated in a legal forum. Freedom loving American tend to hate bullies and terrorists-- that is how I see it.

Your defense of the benign nature of the KKK, IMO, would fall flat in a court of law.


Clearly you didn't understand my points and don't care to argue honestly. Rather than defend your position, you simple come with more wild assertions about how you've got real Americans on your side who hate bullies and terrorists. You're right - and they're ignorant bigots too. Fortunately, the law protects the rights of the minority from the whim or prejudice of the ignorant majority.

To summarize my response as though it was simply an argument for the benign nature of the KKK demonstrates that you are unwilling to have an honest discussion - at all.

Enjoy your bigotry. You'll get no further response from me on this issue.

-Matt
Sans_Deity
Iron Chariots Admin
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: Austin, Tx

Postby eFree » Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:24 am

Sans_Deity wrote:This is nonsense. The "act" of joining a group is not an actionable "act". As I said, this act is legal and it is protected. I fail to understand why you keep coming back to this nonsensical argument about "act" vs. "belief".-Matt

I keep coming back to this because on ACT is an ACT, not a belief. Though you may find it 'protected' does not convert this to a 'belief'. I could join a group called 'kill Sans Diety' and Iam confident you would agree you have the right to 'discriminate' against me.

I you do not think KKK = 'kill black people' for many Americans you are wrong. You know full well history is replete with evidence to support this conclusion. I have no interest in providing you with names and dates.

Lastly, you wrote this about your precious law, "Fortunately, the law protects the rights of the minority from the whim or prejudice of the ignorant majority." do you think you would believe this if you were black?

I love that you call me bigot. By I defy you me to identify a groups that I am 'bigoted' against. Perhaps you mean I am bigoted against bullies and terrorists. You are right, so is everybody else.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Previous

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron