tecoyah

Homosexuality is not a corporate issue, it is a societal issue and therefor falls into the mainstream of public domain.

There is a huge difference between discrimination based on sexual orientation, and discrimination based on work ethic, or experience.

By your definition, I should be able to hire only those people who I personally like, and pass on anyone who disagrees with me. Would it be Okay for a Gay corporate executive to hire only other Gays? Or do you think there would be a bit of an outcry from the Public. What if Bill Gates was Gay and all 200,000 MS employees were Gay as well?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

martinguerre

yeah...i'm glad that's true. I never hire irish, or any other bloody papists for that matter. And i'd rather go out of business than hire colored folk.

I'd go on further...but i've used up all the anachronistic ethnic and racial slurs i can think of. Point is...employers don't have a right to hire based on idenitity and lifestyle, but ONLY characteristics relevant to the job.

adysav

I hate to criticise you, again, but this is a strange statement.

Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity

Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.

This is what happens when you try to apply the term deviant to one persons beliefs.
What you mean is that we are all unique because we are individuals. Deviancy is taken as relative to society as a whole.

adysav

Perhaps the default Windows colour schemes would be better than they are now.
Well, except in cases of affirmative action.

tecoyah

You have....as Usual, answered my question by dodging it. I would very much like your take on this, Perhaps if I clarify:

If indeed it is acceptable for a company to hire individuals based on personal bias, or discomfort with an aspect of chosen lifestyle. Is it then, also acceptable for Society as a whole to accept the obvious discrimination, and instead work through economic means (boycott, Advertisement, etc...) to correct what is percieved as a wrong?

Or does the lack of majority, make the percieved wrong by the minority irrelevant in a civilized society?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Suave

The only reason affirmative action has been put into place is to try to fix some of the fuckups of institutionalised and personal racism. Maybe if you didn't live somewhere that actually has cities split up between "black" communities, "white" communities, and whatever else, you wouldn't have cause to piss and moan over affirmative action. IF YOU ARE BETTER QUALIFIED, YOU WILL GET THE JOB.

adysav

Well, I wasn't arguing this point at all, just trying to inject some humour.
But since you're interested, yes I think companies should be able to hire whoever they please. It would also be acceptable (as it is now) to boycott a business for any reason you see fit.
If someone opens a business called Jose's Hispanic Accountants and employs only hispanic folk, you have every right to tell all your friends "hey dont go to Jose's, he's a racist fker".
Now back in reality, Jose actually does open an accountanting firm. I (a white guy) apply for an open position and to fill his quota of white folk he hires me. Do I want to work for someone who hates me? Fuck no.
I take it you're talking about the US. I'm not a US resident but as it happens my city does have an ethnic divide. Not enforced, out of the residents' choice.
Actually, no, that's the whole point of affirmitive action. Applicants of whatever ethnic origin are given preference in order to fill quotas, so your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.

filtherton

Sure, whatever, let's go off on another tangent, shall we?

Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity

Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.[/quote]

Even if i was one of the people "slamming your natural predisposition statement", it isn't even relevant to the idea of deviance. It would seem to me, by your assertion that nobody is limited by society's expectations of them, that it would be inconsistent of you to acknowledge the existence of deviance at all.

But no, your right, there is no objective reality. There are no statistics. We cannot use these nonexistent statistics to determine what kind of behavior the majority engages in. All we have are the intangible opinions of the majority.

Deviancy can be taken as relative to society as a whole, but society as a whole is irrational and shortsighted. If you want to denounce a behavior on the sole basis that society frowns upon it than you haven't put a lot of thought into what you're saying. If you have that much faith in the wisdom of groupthink than just stop arguing with me right now please because we will never see eye to eye.

If you look at deviance in terms of what people actually do, instead of what they think everyone else is and should be doing, you will see that deviance can easily be defined as the behavior the majority engages in rather than the behavior the majority accepts.

wilbjammin

Our society is structured around unemployment. The Fed actually bases its entire economic policy around the reserve of employers. Full employment is considered bad economically by the Fed, because it creates competition for employees which creates upward pressure on wages (which will theorhetically cause businesses to lose money and ruin the economy). In any event, unemployment and a need for jobs in this system is a constant, and more of an imminent problem for people of historically impoverished groups than others. You might not be strapped for cash, but there are hundreds of thousands of people that will take a job that will get the bills paid if they could, even if the social climate isn't that great (or just bad). And truly, there are all kinds of harassment laws and unfair practice laws that are meant to protect employees from other employees and their employers. Boycotts are helpful when the law is failing, however, I don't think that is should be the #1 tool of choice for solving problems when we have laws that are meant to protect people. Boycotts typically hurt the economy and burn bridges rather than build bridges.

I think you're mischaracterizing Affirmative Action like most people do. Affirmative Action states that employers/schools are to take every <i>reasonable</i> action to level the playing field and to set <i>reasonable</i> <b>goals</b> for employment/enrollment of minorities. If goals aren't met and there is documentation that all reasonable efforts were made to meet those goals, then the chances of a case being filed against the school or business are very low. There are no quotas. For more information see Facts on Executive Order 11246 - Affirmative Action .

Additionally, it is very important to note that the vast wealth of the United States has been predicated on a system of exploitation. Previously, of course, the exploited class of people were African America slaves. After Reconstruction, if you know our history, freed slaves had so many barriers to economic success that their ability to rise up the economic ladder were ridiculously small. You can claim a sort of indignant stance that you only want to work for people that like you, but that does not create a social structure where enough of your people are employers to provide jobs that will give you enough money to live on. I think it is absolutely necessary to have laws and checks and balances to prevent and break down institutionalized racism and prejudice (women and homosexuals, for instance) to help create the society that best serves all of its citizens of all walks of life. Typically, the arguments against this, as I see them, are based on beliefs of people that are afraid of losing their privilige and think that laws that help level the playing field are allowing minorities to oppress the majority. And typically, this is not the case, and the exceptions where the laws didn't work perfectly get blown up in the media. Affirmative Action has had more successes than failures, which is better than a laissez-faire approach to employment/enrollment historically has had. This is not to say that Affirmative Action could use some reworkings, but it is better than nothing.

__________________
Innominate.

adysav

If everyone acts a certain way because they want to, that's different to everyone acting a certain way because they're expected to. The observable result is still the same.

On the other point it seems I misunderstood you, and then you misunderstood me. We're on the same plane though, effectively.

adysav

I don't live in the US so perhaps some of the details are different.
There's always the folk who aren't racist/sexist/whatever. I would have thought that overtly racist companies would do a lot less trade than their competitors, evening out the playing field somewhat.