North Carolina GOP Platform - Gov should be able to discriminate against gays

[opinterph]

… It is much more important that employers have the freedom to hire the best person for the job, without regard to race, etc or orientation.

Employers who hire the best person for the job from the available labor pool are in compliance with the law. Hiring, raises, promotions, or terminations that do not involve discrimination against a protected class are expected. The law protects everyone – not just employers.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

The law protects everyone – not just employers.

This. This is one of the factors benvolio implies is causing jobs to be sent overseas and his answer to that (to bring jobs back) is to remove the "everyone - not just" from that statement.

Yet, I feel he would be the FIRST one to cry "discrimination" if a "job creator" turned him away for his radical "Democrats are nazis who want to abort all the white babies" rhetoric.

 

[Benvolio]

Employers who hire the best person for the job from the available labor pool are in compliance with the law. Hiring, raises, promotions, or terminations that do not involve discrimination against a protected class are expected. The law protects everyone – not just employers.

No. The failure to hire a generally proportionate share of each minority can be used as evidence of discrimination, so, hiring the best people is dangerous. The effect is to require discrimination against other groups.
And, people passed over in hiring or promotion tend to think it was for some reason other than merit, so, it must be discrimination. The most conscientious employer is likely to be sued.
Then, scroll down to #29 manpower9. He says his employer wanted to eliminate his position, but kept him on for fear of being sued. One of the effects of the discrimination laws is to make protected persons less desirable as employees. They can make trouble and file frivolous lawsuits.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

They can make trouble and file frivolous lawsuits.

The lawsuits are not frivolous if they have merit. In your scenario, how has ANY "job creator" managed to stay in business since fair hiring laws came into being??

It's nothing but more barking at parked cars.

DO YOU BELIEVE EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE?

YES OR NO?

 

[Benvolio]

They should not discriminate, but the law should allow them to do so. Just as employees may discriminate in refusing employment or in terminating, there is no reason the employer should have fewer rights.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

the law should allow them to do so. Just as employees may discriminate in refusing employment or in terminating, there is no reason the employer should have fewer rights.

So that is a yes. You believe that laws should allow employers to refuse work to someone because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, religion, politics, or because they are a woman. Got it.

 

[opinterph]

No. The failure to hire a generally proportionate share of each minority can be used as evidence of discrimination, so, hiring the best people is dangerous. The effect is to require discrimination against other groups.

…protected persons … can make trouble and file frivolous lawsuits.

Employers are expected to maintain documents and other records to validate their hiring decisions. If they indeed hire the most qualified individuals, then the EEOC will verify that fact and will not issue a cause determination. What “people tend to think” is not necessarily the way things are. I’ve had employees threaten to sue me for various reasons. If you haven’t done anything wrong – there is no reason to go hide under a rock and embrace fear.

With regard to the other member’s suspicion about his employer’s motivation, I lack sufficient information about his circumstance to render an opinion.

IMO, persons who regard fair treatment to be an onerous demand should not be engaged in business.

 

[Benvolio]

In an ideal world there wold be no disgruntled employees seeking to get rich from juries biased against employers, no greedy plaintiff's lawyers. Alas we must live in the real world, where they abound.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

In an ideal world there wold be no disgruntled employees seeking to get rich from juries biased against employers, no greedy plaintiff's lawyers. Alas we must live in the real world, where they abound.

In an ideal world there would be no bigots who unreasonably hate those who are different from themselves. In an ideal world no one would ever want to deny someone a living wage because they are biased against the color of their skin, their religion, sex, or orientation. Alas, we must live in the real world, where they abound.

 

[Benvolio]

So that is a yes. You believe that laws should allow employers to refuse work to someone because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, religion, politics, or because they are a woman. Got it.

Yes, and of course, employees and prospective employees may refuse or terminate employment for discriminatory motives. If they do not choose to work for an employer who is gay, or black, or Hispanic etc, it is wrong for them to quit, but they do have the right
.

 

[Rolyo85]

So, Benvolio, answer me this:

If I - a gay man - and another white man, but straight, are applying for the same job, and we have the exact same credentials but I have more work experience, yet the employer doesn't hire me because he hates gays, is that ok?

I find it repulsive that in your world anti-discrimination laws have only ONE side which is greedy employees leeching off poor employers, but you do not recognize the side where bigoted employers kick people out and refuse to hire them because of skin color or sexual orientation.

DO YOU SEE THIS SIDE AT ALL, AND IF YES, HOW WOULD YOU COMMENT ON IT?

 

[Kulindahr]

No. The failure to hire a generally proportionate share of each minority can be used as evidence of discrimination, so, hiring the best people is dangerous. The effect is to require discrimination against other groups.
And, people passed over in hiring or promotion tend to think it was for some reason other than merit, so, it must be discrimination. The most conscientious employer is likely to be sued.
Then, scroll down to #29 manpower9. He says his employer wanted to eliminate his position, but kept him on for fear of being sued. One of the effects of the discrimination laws is to make protected persons less desirable as employees. They can make trouble and file frivolous lawsuits.

Please provide an example of one such lawsuit from each region of the United States in at least three of the last five years. If you're right, that shouldn't be hard at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

So that is a yes. You believe that laws should allow employers to refuse work to someone because of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, religion, politics, or because they are a woman. Got it.

It's a nice inconsistency: hiring a worker is a matter of a contract, but Benvolio wants it to be a one-sided contract, where one party is in control and the other has no say.

 

[Kulindahr]

In an ideal world there wold be no disgruntled employees seeking to get rich from juries biased against employers, no greedy plaintiff's lawyers. Alas we must live in the real world, where they abound.

In an ideal world there would be no greedy rich, who together manage over the course of several decades to cut the real wages of most employees by half, funneling the difference to themselves as unearned wealth. Alas, we must live in the real world, where such are the norm.


Now, the thing here is, your claim is based on fantasies, whereas mine is based on the economic history of the country.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, and of course, employees and prospective employees may refuse or terminate employment for discriminatory motives. If they do not choose to work for an employer who is gay, or black, or Hispanic etc, it is wrong for them to quit, but they do have the right
.

Talk about asymmetric.....

 

[Ninja108]

No, Ninja108 Republicans favor free enterprise and are struggling to preserve out economy. If you do not see the connection between legal burdens being placed on employers and jobs being sent overseas, you need to give more thought to economic cause and effect.

No, Rolyo, the NC platform is not a law or even a proposal for a law.

If that's the case benvolio then why the heck was the very anti-gay amendment 1 among the first order of business for the NC GOP?
And I noticed you STILL haven't answered my question about the GOP putting anti-gay platforms in writing.

 

[Kulindahr]

If that's the case benvolio then why the heck was the very anti-gay amendment 1 among the first order of business for the NC GOP?
And I noticed you STILL haven't answered my question about the GOP putting anti-gay platforms in writing.

He's pretending to himself that he really isn't hated by his compatriots. There will be some cute reason dreamed up to rationalize that act of hatred being right up in the opening priorities.

Today's gay Republicans are the Tories of yesteryear, determined to kiss the King's ass and lick his boots despite the fact that he loves his ass better than them and that boot is on their neck. Such were the enemies of liberty then, and such they are now.

 

[hotatlboi]

No, Ninja108 Republicans favor free enterprise and are struggling to preserve out economy. If you do not see the connection between legal burdens being placed on employers and jobs being sent overseas, you need to give more thought to economic cause and effect.

No, Rolyo, the NC platform is not a law or even a proposal for a law.

Wrong, the bolded is exactly what a party platform is, it's a proposal for what the party would want to see enacted.