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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80818)	6/30/2004 1:13:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"But there is no right of others to demand that you pay them" is what you said. That is VERY different than being forced to hire somebody. OK. imagine your a bigot who owns and runs a company. Imagine you don't want to pay any white people. Tell me how you are not required to pay white people. If you are required to hire them, and you are required to pay them for their work if you hire them, then you are required to pay them. The State has an obligation to protect her members from systemic discrimination. Does it? Where in the constitution does it say this? Or are you just talking about a moral obligation rather then a constitutional one? Where does the constitution even grant the federal government the power to enforce obligations on the private sector to protect individuals from systematic discrimination from businesses that do all their business within one state? I'd buy the compelling interest of the state angle a little bit more if anti-discrimination laws only went against the most severe and systematic discrimination, and if the amount of regulation in this area tended to decline over time as society became more integrated and discrimination became less common and less systematic. If the situation with discrimination is/was severe enough, and the laws where temporary and understood as an imposition that is tolerated for a time to deal with a severe threat, then I might consider such laws to be similar to the draft, a gross injustice which theoretically could be needed for a short time to deal with a horrible situation. Some people view affirmative action this way. I personally can't see any reason for government imposed affirmative action and I would be against private sector affirmative action but I would respect the right of individuals and companies to hire based on affirmative action ideas if that is what they want to do. They have the same freedom of association that everyone else has. If anti-discrimination laws can be temporarily be tolerated under the most severe conditions then the question would become are conditions so severe. Is there an immense threat to our nation or our society that anti-discrimination are both necessary and sufficient to deal with? Tim