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 eFree » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:27 pm

Sans_Deity wrote:As a quick follow up, consider this:
You hire a new employee.
One year later, they join the KKK (or you discover that they're in the KKK).
Can you fire them for this?
If that doesn't settle this, I'm not sure what will.
-Matt


I am baffled Matt, what country are you living in? I just heard chuck Swindoll in your fair state say he fired two employees for having an adulterous relationship. If you support your claims you should go sue Chuck unless you agree his B.S. 'religious freedom' immunes him from employment right laws. (By the way, my rights of freedom have nothing to do with laws. You can never 'force' me to think a certain way-- the only question is am I 'free' to act on them. I hope we agree on this. Thus joining KKK is an action and totally different than a 'belief' that KKK is correct.)

Second, adultery is not same as KKK which has / does continue to threaten 'real' people. I am allowed to Know and Protect myself from those threatening people. He Chose to join KKK so he Forfeits his right to employment from me.

Third, You cannot site one example where this would not hold up in court.

I hope that settles the matter
I would fire him ON THE SPOT-- to not do so, IMHO, is morally weak

One more thought: We are presented two people with two actions
1) person X joins KKK
2) person Z fires person X for joining KKK
You will vehemently protect person X 'right' to employment and ''deny' my 'right' to 'protect myself' against person X-- despite evidence that suggest person X could be thrieatening?
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:03 am

efree said:
To the responder who said I would be sued, I would say You have no backbone to defend your beliefs, and you are almost certainly wrong.


Hmmm... I guesss I'm the "invertebrate" in question. :shock:

I don't know what "beliefs"you reference.
But, in lieu of beliefs, I do have a conviction that:
A) all applicants should be treated equally when considering their suitability for a business position. Equally in this sense means limiting inquiry to their education, business appitude, management technique, communication skills, achievement, adaptablity, etc.

B) I also have the conviction that members of the KKK are subhuman troglydites (sp?)

c) Finally, I have the maturity, business responsibility, and respect for the intent of the law to seperate those two things.

As a busness person my responsibility is to the business, not to my subjective personal opinion of a prospective employee's privately held personal beliefs, or organizations to which he belongs. It's not about backbone, it's about how to do the right thing for the business and about following a law designed to reduce discrimination against ANYONE by talking personally held beliefs and associations out of the hiring equation.

That you prize some personal sense of crusading morality above the needs of the business and inspite of anti-discrimination laws, suggests you're not a businessman. No doubt both you and the business world are very agreeable on maintaining that distance.

On all other points, Matt's reply above speaks for me as well.

efree said:
He Chose to join KKK so he Forfeits his right to employment from me.


Then to be consistant, you would also reserve the right of companies to not hire /or to fire people who belong to organizations that THEY feel are dangerous and subversive: i.e. The Freedom from Religion Foundation, The Democratic Party, The Green Party, Green Peace, The Ayn Rand Institute, American Muslim Association, Jewish Defense League, The LDS Church, NAACP, Gay Lberation Front, Freemasons, B'nai Brith, ... etc., etc.
Or is it just the KKK , and just YOU'RE subjectivity that is justifiable discrimination? Slippery slope.
Last edited by dromedaryhump1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:59 am

Efree:
BTW, re prohibited employment questions here is info from just two sites.

Membership of organizations
Questions regarding affiliations are prohibited if the intention is discrimination. Examples of prohibited questions include:
Do you belong to...?
http://www.cvtips.com/interview_prohibi ... tions.html

Examples of improper questions (residence and afilliations/organizations)
What clubs, social organizations, societies, or lodges do you belong to?
What off-the-job activities do you participate in?

http://www.jobweb.com/interviews.aspx?id=1343


For it to hold up in court, the complainant would have to prove that the question you asked and either their refusal to answer or their actual response, was the reason for denial or dismisal. But that should be no problem in your case. When they put you on the witness stand, I naturally assume, based on your professed principles, righteousness, and veracity, you'd confess to that. Unless of course you suffer from a backbone deficiency. :wink:
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby eFree » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:38 am

dromedaryhump1 wrote:For it to hold up in court, the complainant would have to prove that the question you asked and either their refusal to answer or their actual response, was the reason for denial or dismisal. But that should be no problem in your case. When they put you on the witness stand, I naturally assume, based on your professed principles, righteousness, and veracity, you'd confess to that. Unless of course you suffer from a backbone deficiency. :wink:

You are indeed correct that we make laws to protect our agreed moral principles. We may also agree that these laws do not always work under every conceivable circumstance. This is such a case. We have to conflicting rights:
1) my right to protect myself and my company
2) Your right to belong to a hostile and violent 'group'

I would have no problem hashing this out in court, as I have THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.

Imagine the headline. "Man goes to jail for denying racist prick employment-- KKK celebrates with festival complete with mock lynching."

We are not this 'legalistic' are we.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:16 am

Efree said:
my right to protect myself and my company ...
I would have no problem hashing this out in court, as I have THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.


If its YOU'RE own privately held company you are certainly within your rights to incur a judgement and fine, and be forced to hire/reinstate the person with back pay. Your moral highground not withstanding. If its a publicly held corporation, the problem wouldnt be yours alone. I doubt they'd appreciate your highground perspective. Unless ofcourse you'll surrender the moral highground and lie.

But, I can see rednecked hairy knuckled assholes using the same exact statement in defending their right to not hire a member of the NAACP, or CORE. or B'nai Brith, or a contributor to the ACLU. In his mind, he's got the moral highground as well. Just ask him.

Imagine the headline. "Man goes to jail for denying racist prick employment-- KKK celebrates with festival complete with mock lynching."


Sorry, no jail. As much as you'd like to be martyed for your moral high ground, you'll serve not a day. Your company will just be fined, and the employee appropriately compensated or reinstated. But now, you'll have the EEOC monitoring every hiring / firing decision your company will make for the next 3-5 years. I'm sure they'd love that.

Infact, more than likely it won't go to court since during pre-trial deposition you'll openly admit to violation of EEOC statutes, and your publicly held company will settle out of court. You likely won't even get the benefit of a headline or public martyrdom, just a pink slip. Then hope you're next prospective employer doesn't break the EEOC statues by asking you why you were fired from your last job.

No...freedom of thought and association, no matter how distasteful it is to us sometimes, is no reason for denying anyone a living. You don't have to like it, but it's the price we pay for maintaining a free society... for everyone.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby eFree » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:34 am

dromedaryhump1 wrote:But, I can see rednecked hairy knuckled assholes using the same exact statement in defending their right to not hire a member of the NAACP, or CORE. or B'nai Brith, or a contributor to the ACLU. In his mind, he's got the moral highground as well. Just ask him.
This implies my decision is equally arbitrary, which it is not. Of course, this requires moral clarity and the gut to defend one's 'morally justified' position. your assuming I would lose even if correct does not address the rightness/wrongness of the delimma.

Imagine the headline. "Man goes to jail for denying racist prick employment-- KKK celebrates with festival complete with mock lynching."
okay, replace prison with fine. the argument is the same. MLK Jr. for example was not a favorite of police, for example. I am not suggesting encouraging being a hero. I am suggesting supporting morally sound judgments.

No...freedom of thought and association, no matter how distasteful it is to us sometimes, is no reason for denying anyone a living.
I will ask you what I asked Matt: What country do you like in? I went to an evangelical Christian College and would not be able to work there because of my beliefs that they are legally allowed to ask me about. The laws already support immunity for certain groups. This does not seem to bother you.

Let's make this a little more relevant. Suppose I am forced to hire said KKK man and his office cubicle happens to be next to an African American man who finds the same information about this man's KKK affiliation. Then, he says to me, "I missed work for the last few days because I am scared of that dude. I am going to have to look for another job."

IMO, this African-American has the right to work in an environment that is not threatening. This easily trumps KKK man's right to employment.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:22 am

efree said;
This implies my decision is equally arbitrary, which it is not.


Uh, yes. Under the law it is. Both you and the knuckle dragger have a persective. that you dispise his doesn't make yours more valid.

course, this requires moral clarity and the gut to defend one's 'morally justified' position. your assuming I would lose even if correct does not address the rightness/wrongness of the delimma
.

Ah!! "moral clarity" !! Is it moral to stop a KKK person from voicing his opinion in a public arena? Some may think so. Our Founding Fathers thought otherwise. There are people who have risked their lives to defend the right of others to voice morally offensive speech. Similarly the EEOC statue would be in violation of our rights if they deemed one groups thoughts, or one person's association to be grounds for job discrimination
just so long as said association activities/philosophies are not brought into/ practiced in the workplace

Yes, assuming you wouldn't lie in pretrial deposition, or during trial, you'd lose. This isn't an assumption. Even if it were a jury trial and they sympathized with your righteousness and found the company not guilty, the judge would have to vacate the decision. The law is clear.

MLK Jr. for example was not a favorite of police, for example. I am not suggesting encouraging being a hero. I am suggesting supporting morally sound judgments


I knew MLK, Jr, and YOU'RE no MLK, Jr.! Just kidding :D

I will ask you what I asked Matt: What country do you like [sic] in?

You can't tell that my reference to the EEOC and the Founding Fathers infers I'm a US citizen?

I
went to an evangelical Christian College and would not be able to work there because of my beliefs that they are legally allowed to ask me about. The laws already support immunity for certain groups. This does not seem to bother you
.

Nope, no problem. There are well defined exemptions. You probably would't be hired to work in a strip club either, and your rejection based on gender would not be sexual discrimnation, and would be upheld. Sorry. It has to do with you're ability toperform the job. You'd be a lousey attraction at a strip club. Similarly, by not being an evangelical Christian you would not be able to fulfill, or would directly undermine, the objectives of an evangelical organization.

Belonging to the KKK, or Gay Liberation front, or NAACP etc. etc., however has no bearing on being able to perform the job requirements of a Marketing exec, Publicist, Secretary, Salemen, etc. That's the law, and thats moral clarity.


Let's make this a little more relevant. Suppose I am forced to hire said KKK man and his office cubicle happens to be next to an African American man who finds the same information about this man's KKK affiliation. Then, he says to me, "I missed work for the last few days because I am scared of that dude. I am going to have to look for another job."


Interesting that both you and your workforce seem to have this investgative bent, but ok. So the blackman finds out the guy is in the KKK. Unless the KKK guy threatened the blackman, made inuendos, was abusive, told racist jokes, hung up a KKK banner, wore his hood, or made some overt offensive and illegal act under the EEOC statues, then there is no grounds for the company do do anything. The KKK guy did not cause a hostile work environment. The blackman's imagination is no grounds for the KKK guy's dismissal and inability to earn a living. He was guilty of NOTHING.

I'm a little surprised you even constructed such a flimsy scenario. Substitute Black Panther member, for KKK ... and substitute little whimpy white guy for the blackman... insert the same nonthreatening/non overt scenario...and tell me that a white racist couldn't make the same flimsy and groundless argument for not hiring the black guy.

Substitute American Muslim Association member for the KKK guy...and the wife of a 911 victim, or a jewish guy, or an Iraq veteran for the black guy. They all missed work cause they were "scared" .
Where does this stop?
C'mon.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby eFree » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:04 am

dromedaryhump1 wrote:Similarly, by not being an evangelical Christian you would not be able to fulfill, or would directly undermine, the objectives of an evangelical organization.
Yes, and I would undermine the objectives of fascists for Christ as well. The point is, there are now huge communities of evangelicals that have virtually taken over entire towns. For example, consider Lynchburg Va home of Falwell's Liberty U. In that town, let us say I have a PhD. in chemistry and Lynchburg is my hometown. I would be essentially forced to move despite job opportunities there available for my expertise. We could do the ad absurdum thing and give hypothetical example, whati if 90% of state/country/town--whatever was evangelical, then what-- say they controlled 80% of available academic positions, then what? I have a right to defend my freedom-- despite your 'legal' exemptions.

Belonging to the KKK, or Gay Liberation front, or NAACP etc. etc., however has no bearing on being able to perform the job requirements of a Marketing exec, Publicist, Secretary, Salemen, etc. That's the law, and thats moral clarity.
Morally weak. We have too much information/evidence of official KKK ACTS and official intentions to ACT in a way that violates others rights. Not true of NAACP, for example. You could not say I do not have the right to take this into account. It is not possible for you to say I don't have 'legitiamate grounds' for concern.

Once again, let's take to an extreme. Say I am black and my father was lynched by KKK and potential employee is KKK grand master. Now what? Do you have a comparable level of potential threat from Gay Liberation?

Furthermore, this potential employee has recourse. He could say, "you are right, I have no right to be a part of a purposefully threatening organization. I will renounce my affiliation with KKK."

Then he gets the job if qualified. I am not deny him an opportunity.

Plus, why did you choose 'marketing'--after all, known KKK member is easy to show how this can adversely effect 'marketing' to African-Americans. Indeed, I could merely say, "he affiliation clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding of the black community. Therefore, he is NOT QUALIFIED to do high quality 'marketing'", which brings us back to beginning where I said this is much harder to justify if he applies for janitor.


hung up a KKK banner, .
Do you want to retract this one? After all, isn't this his right? Like wearing a cross necklace, perhaps. If you think KKK banner is not Okay, how can you justify memebership?
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:29 am

efree..
with all due respect. I'm not going to reply to each of your statements above. They are so fraught with your own unbending perspective, and youre so unwillng to see the larger pcture and implications, that I sense my typing is in vain.

Every one of your statements above are either strawman or reflective of a lack of introspection relative to the greater good intention of the law. While you didnt respond directly to my side bar reference to our laws protecting hate speech, I'll put you down for favoring curtailment of speech that you dislike because it is morally offensive to you.


I'll just address your last sentence about a KKK banner in the wotrkplace because it exemplifies a lack of understanding and experience. You said:
Do you want to retract this one? After all, isn't this his right? Like wearing a cross necklace, perhaps. If you think KKK banner is not Okay, how can you justify memebership?



No... I dont want to retract anything.
No, its NOT his right to put a KKK banner in his work space. No one has the right to post political, overtly religious, Private organization propaganda, or sexually oriented material in the work place. The statue speaks to creating a hostile work environment. It would violate THE SAME EEOC LAWS THAT PROTECT THE KKK GUY FROM DISCRIMINATION BY YOU. If you were in the work force / business world you'd know this.

And I didnt "justify membership" in the KKK, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Racism isn't justifiable, IMO. But, a persons right to hold those beliefs however are protected... his right to practice them are not.

Peoples outside activities, private thoughts, or personal philosophy cannot be grounds for discrimnation in employment. Only if it is brought into and overtly effects the work environment. This law works for everyone, for all philosophies.

Still object? Write your Congressman. I sense no minds wil be changed here.
Last edited by dromedaryhump1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby eFree » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:03 am

dromedaryhump1 wrote:Peoples outside activities, private thoughts, or personal philosophy cannot be grounds for discrimnation in employment. Only if it is brought into and overtly effects the work environment.
EEOC also respects my 'right' to 'in good faith' determine what 'qualified' means for a job. You can not 'legislate' how to do this. And though we obviously disagree, I think you will see my position is predicated on the judgment that his KKK afilliation WILL affect his WORK environment. Again that is why i discussed management vs janitor. I could say based on my experience, a good manager does not join groups that alienate others. This demonstrates POOR JUDGMENT for a manager, which my company finds very important.

As well, I was clear about saying his affiliation with KKK came to my attention without investigation and without solicitation.

Lastly, I do not deny it is potential for lawsuit. I am saying bring it on. I believe I have the moral High Ground to win.

You may disagree, but you cannot disagree that U.S. has poor track record of protecting hated groups. So, it seems we should agree there is room for tweeking the laws to improve. That is what we are discussing.

Back to the beginning, I cannot agree to don't ask, don't care if it may leave me vulnerable to harm. Not irrational fear, you would lose badly based on piles of evidence that 'fear' of KKK is rational. On the other hand you will not have any evidence of merits to ME of someone's membership in KKK. Thus, a KKK member is high risk of harm and little likelihood of benefit = I have a 'right' to know and care.

You have a right to say my acting on this belief violates other people's freedom, then we can hash it out--- I am quite confident I would win.

Even if my company is 'fined' imagine the free press and good will that this would generate of having 'stood up to the bigots and racists of KKK'- or do you disagree with this as well?
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby dromedaryhump1 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:33 am

efree...
you seem to almost ignore all my points. You didnt even responde to my accusation that you would limit free speech to only things you dont find morally offensive. I think I made that statement twice, yet you ignored it. If you agree with that sentiment then you're saying you reject the 1st Amendment. If you do, then it's our turn to ask "What country do you live in?'

Even if my company is 'fined' imagine the free press and good will that this would generate of having 'stood up to the bigots and racists of KKK'- or do you disagree with this as well?


Yes, if youre in the business of generating goodwill, no doubt some large sections of the population will give you kudos. And every short sighted myopic rube who fails to see its bigger, potentially ominous implications, potentially for them, will think youre a saint. Kudos. Maybe with that success under your belt you can try it again with an Evangelical Christian applicant, for fear of him offending your atheist, Jewish, and hindu employees because its his belief that it's his duty to God to proselytize everyone. Talk about morally reprehensible. Go get 'em!!

But, if your in the business of growing a business for the long term by hiring the most business qualified people (which the KKK guy was in this scenario) then indeed I would disagree. So would your employer.

I disagree with everything else in your post as well, or dismiss them as patently naive and smaking of a lack of a mature business understanding. [youre pouncing on the marketing thing, and stating anyone with a prejudice can't possibly market to the 12% of the population that is the target of his prejudice is remarkably simpistic. It may be a good proposition in a sophomore year sociology class, but its not real business world reality]

as for this from your prior post:
Once again, let's take to an extreme. Say I am black and my father was lynched by KKK and potential employee is KKK grand master. Now what? Do you have a comparable level of potential threat from Gay Liberation?


Yikes!! Sure, lets infuse every law with a personal story and see if we can justify breaking it. Ok, lets dabble in the hypothetical...here ya go:

Lets say a guys son died of AIDS because he got a transfusion of infected blood donated by a homosexual. And lets say the applicant he's interviewing is the head of the Gay Liberation group who endorses equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to donate blood. Now What? The gay guy shouldnt be hired because the business man equates his son's death with this applicants position and beliefs?? And somehowthis guys beliefs make him not competant to do ...what.... Marketing to straights??? Please. Stop it.


As for :
You have a right to say my acting on this belief violates other people's freedom, then we can hash it out--- I am quite confident I would win.


Whats to "hash out'? The law is plain. And win? Win where, win what?
Like I said, write you're Congressman. If you"win" get back to us.

Anyway lets agree to wrap up here... or you have the last word... either way.
dromedaryhump1
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Postby eFree » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:34 am

dromedaryhump1 wrote:efree...
you seem to almost ignore all my points. You didnt even responde to my accusation that you would limit free speech
I have made it more than clear that my opposition to KKK (or evangelical colleges) have to do with ACTIONS taken, not 'free speech', so I don't feel the need to answer as I am sensing a condescending motive.


Yes, if youre in the business of generating goodwill, no doubt some large sections of the population will give you kudos. And every short sighted myopic rube who fails to see its bigger, potentially ominous implications, potentially for them, will think youre a saint. Kudos.

I disagree with everything else in your post as well, or dismiss them as patently naive
I work frequently in the South and there is no doubt that a black man/ or woman does not have too many rights in very wide swathes of our country. So, I think up there in New Hampshire (the land of racial diversity) is where the naive live. Your precious laws do precious little to protect people's right where the prevailing public majority has no interest in upholding them. If writing a 'congressman', as you suggests, worked, then it would seem unlikely that most reforms that have to do with 'liberties' and 'rights' have been initially motivated by the courts.

That being the case, it would seem to me wise to place more emphasis in engaging a tool that has been more effective (the judiciary)

I will give you a challenge. I will provide you with a road trip map. Have a black man and a white woman drive that route, you stay in back seat with your video camera. After you abort this mission in your own country, show me your video evidence of the effectiveness of your laws.

The 'teeth' in your laws are 'sharp' in part because of people like me that don't 'wilt' when the prevailing community consensus says, "you are breaking the law."

On a positive note, I think you and I want the same thing, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our fellow citizens of the world."
I hope you will accept that we may differ based on my experiences in morally bankrupt areas where oppressive people love to make 'laws' and 'statutes' that trample on human rights. My view is a strategy, which I believe is clearest route to my 'deontologic goals', which we probably share.
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby Sans_Deity » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:40 am

No, you don't have the moral high ground - you have LOST the moral high ground.

The point was that you don't have a legal right to even ask the question - and the relevant law has been cited.

have made it more than clear that my opposition to KKK (or evangelical colleges) have to do with ACTIONS taken


Actually, I not only don't think you've made that clear - your statements contradict it.

Whether or not an individual holds racists beliefs or belongs to a racist organization is not sufficient grounds for discrimination. They have a right to those beliefs, no matter how distasteful others may find them. They are protected - and you're advocating the elimination of that protection.

If, as a member of the KKK, this individual takes actions that negatively affect their job performance and/or your bottom line - then you have a case. Not before...which is why you are not legally allowed to ask the question - which was the whole point.

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

Postby eFree » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:18 pm

Sans_Deity wrote:Whether or not an individual holds racists beliefs or belongs to a racist organization is not sufficient grounds for discrimination.
Maybe you could clarify some things for me
1) is joining an organization an ACT or a belief?
----- a) is it sane to say I have no right to 'judge' that action. After all, you cannot legislate my thoughts.
----- b) is it 'wrong' to judge the ACT of joining KKK as 'poor judgment' that may impact on one's job (if so please tell me why -- and it is illegal we should all realize is irrelevant-- I will 'think' regardless of the laws)

2) Is 'lynching' an ACT or a belief?

2.5) Is KKK a group of people with common 'beliefs' ONLY or a group that share a common PLAN OF ACTION to uphold their warped principles?

You are all making me rethink my relatively pacifist views of 2nd amendment. maybe I need a weapon. I don't want to leave my 'rights' in your hands anymore. You won't come to my defense- but would defend the 'poor racist' who just wants to feed his white family.

3) Who made you judge of 'Moral High ground' That is my job: :D

One Last big thought -- you said:
If, as a member of the KKK, this individual takes actions that negatively affect their job performance and/or your bottom line - then you have a case. Not before...which is why you are not legally allowed to ask the question - which was the whole point.

-Matt
He already did this, he joined KKK-- furthermore, some may view this like having someone put a gun to their head-- just the name KKK now carries a social sense of 'threat'. Do I have to wait for someone to shoot, before I know the guy with the gun to my head does not have my 'rights' in mind?
eFree
eFree
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:06 am

Postby Sans_Deity » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:03 pm

eFree wrote:Maybe you could clarify some things for me
1) is joining an organization an ACT or a belief?


Joining is an act, but it's not an act that has a significant external effect. Whether someone joins the KKK, or a church, or an atheist group has no direct effect on the performance of their job. It's a free expression of their beliefs. It's a private matter that isn't necessarily relevant to job performance.

They may take additional actions which DO affect job performance, and then you'd be justified.

eFree wrote: ----- a) is it sane to say I have no right to 'judge' that action. After all, you cannot legislate my thoughts.


As an individual, you have that right. As an employer, you are legally prevented from asking the question because it is unfairly prejudicial. Being a member of organization X, does not necessarily mean you're going to take any action Y. Additionally, taking action Y doesn't necessarily affect your employer.

My employer has no right to information about my personal life, beliefs or activities - until such time as those activities represent a clear conflict of interest or detriment to the performance of my job.

I had a job interview today. I know that one of the three founders of this company is a Christian. Does he have the right to ask about my religious beliefs? Does he have the right to ask if I'm overtly anti-religion and anti-Christianity? If he discovers that I'm the president of the ACA and host of our TV show - a local show that may be viewed by his friends, relatives and business associates - does he have the right to use that as grounds to refuse to hire me?

Absolutely not.

The law protects my freedom and, to some extent, my privacy. He can fire me for cause. He can fire me spending company time on personal tasks or creating a disruption in the workplace, but he can't - legally - fire me for holding views in opposition to his, no matter how vocal I am when I'm away from work.

eFree wrote: ----- b) is it 'wrong' to judge the ACT of joining KKK as 'poor judgment' that may impact on one's job (if so please tell me why -- and it is illegal we should all realize is irrelevant-- I will 'think' regardless of the laws)


Yes, it's wrong to conclude that this act of 'poor judgment' necessarily impacts one's ability to perform their job. If you feel differently, you have the burden of proof. You have to demonstrate that mere membership in an organization sufficiently damages your business to justify not hiring, or firing the individual.

We've already established that individuals have freedom of thought and expression. You're not allowed to ask a prospective employee whether or not they're a member of the KKK, because taking action (refusing to hire or choosing to fire someone) based is unjust. It is an unjustified discrimination and the temptation to act prejudicially, based on the results of such a question, represents an unfair risk to the employee's livelihood.

If, however, the individual's job performance IS effected by actions taken, you have the right to terminate their employment.

eFree wrote: 2) Is 'lynching' an ACT or a belief?


The shockingly ignorant implication here is that being a member of the KKK means you lynch people. I almost didn't bother to comment on this, but I guess I will. You're making gross generalizations and pretending that you can sufficiently assess the character of an individual based on one factor - and that your assessment of the character is necessarily relevant to their ability to perform the job.

Being in the KKK doesn't mean you necessarily advocate or commit murder - and vice versa. (Additionally, having committed murder does place you at a higher risk - which is why employers have a right to ask about criminal records - but we also have laws that protect felons from unfair discrimination, as well.)

eFree wrote:2.5) Is KKK a group of people with common 'beliefs' ONLY or a group that share a common PLAN OF ACTION to uphold their warped principles?


It doesn't matter. They have the right to their beliefs and to take action in accordance with those beliefs - until they infringe on the rights of someone else. You're allowed to believe that blacks should be exterminated, you're allowed to say that you believe this...until you actually take steps to do so, your rights are protected.

eFree wrote:You are all making me rethink my relatively pacifist views of 2nd amendment. maybe I need a weapon. I don't want to leave my 'rights' in your hands anymore. You won't come to my defense- but would defend the 'poor racist' who just wants to feed his white family.


Yes. I protect religious freedom - for everyone - because that's the only way to guarantee my own. I protect freedom of thought - for everyone - for the same reason.

You haven't demonstrated that being a member of the KKK is sufficient grounds to prevent you from hiring someone - you've simply shown that you disagree with their views and that you don't believe they could do a good job.

That sort of simple bigotry is something I'll oppose on all fronts.

eFree wrote: 3) Who made you judge of 'Moral High ground' That is my job: :D


Ditto.

eFree wrote:One Last big thought -- you said:
If, as a member of the KKK, this individual takes actions that negatively affect their job performance and/or your bottom line - then you have a case. Not before...which is why you are not legally allowed to ask the question - which was the whole point.

-Matt
He already did this, he joined KKK-- furthermore, some may view this like having someone put a gun to their head-- just the name KKK now carries a social sense of 'threat'. Do I have to wait for someone to shoot, before I know the guy with the gun to my head does not have my 'rights' in mind?


Please demonstrate that being a member of the KKK necessarily affects job performance.

Also, please stop exaggerating. Being a member of the KKK is nothing at all like having a gun to your head.

You simply asserted, without justification, that simply joining the KKK negatively impacts their job performance. You may as well have asserted that being a Christian, or an atheist, or white separatist, or a NAMBLA member, or a communist, or a socialist, or a dominionist should be sufficient grounds for disqualification.

We've established that you believe this is the case - I'm asking for justification.

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

PreviousNext

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests