Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (64818)	1/13/2000 10:08:00 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<<<For example, would it be right for someone who had become a senth Day Adventist to promulgate an edict that all members of other denominations would have to convert or lose their jobs? Would it be right for someone to inquire about one's intimate sexual practices with one's wife, in the course of a job interview, and refuse one a job because one deviates from the missionary position? Thus, a line has to be drawn about what is and is not the employer's business.>>>> In a word "yes" I know that it may be harsh and I would not approve of it, but in a truly free society(which is my first priority) it is necessary for an individual to have the right to have any prejudice he may desire. Let the employer suffer from losing any excellent employee he may not be able to hire by his prejudices and his company eventually will suffer. Regrettably the employee must seek other employment if he will not submit to the employers demands. daverose

To: Neocon who wrote (64818)	1/13/2000 10:32:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

In your quixotic quest for perfect justice via the strong arm of the state you ignore the benefits of more freedom. When people are free to do what's best in their own eyes ( though not necessarily in yours or my eyes ) you end up with a community with much more opportunity and choices. What could be sweeter than to spit in your jerky prejudiced boss's face as you leave for a better job. All empirical evidence supports this assertion that more freedom = more opportunity and none supports the inverse.

To: Neocon who wrote (64818)	1/13/2000 10:49:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Understood. Yes, none of the circumstances you mentioned impress me as being "right," (though I think in the long run, laws designed to restrict discrimination cause more harm than good). Nevertheless my concern involves public behaviour, that particularly non-passive attribute against which we must reserve the right to discriminate. An employer should not have the right to launch an offensive against anyone. But in the event an employer should launch an offensive against his superiors (as was the case with Rocker), that superior must have the right of disassociation. Mind, this right should extend both ways. An American employee who found South Africa's apartheid system repugnant, should have had (and did have) the right to leave his employer should he have discovered that employer a staunch supporter of apartheid. It is not PC to demand the freedom of association on the basis of behaviour. It is American. ___ Okay okay. It would be good to probe private thoughts to help with hiring decisions. It would be helpful to know if a potential employee would not deviate from the missionary position because that information would probably say a lot about this person's ability to explore and try things. One may want the "missionary only" folk to do good honest work that does not change (assembly lines, etc.) On the other hand one may want the "sky is the limit" folk to join one in the bedroom, er uh, the boardroom.