Poll: Should private institutions be allowed to discriminate?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should private institutions be allowed to discriminate?
Yes, it is their business. Enforced equality is what the public sector is for
38 38%
No, civil rights should extend to them as well
47 47%
Undecided/Other
10 10%
Only private institutions? I don't want my tax money funding blacks/gays/retards/ etc. either!
4 4%
Voters: 99.
Page 1 of 2
#1
I know most people are opposed to discrimination. But a number of small government libertarians and conservatives adhere to the idea that the government should not interfere with private institutions in their manners of business. I know the boy scouts and girl scouts are a real hot button issue in this topic.


I'm wondering what the pit thinks. Should the private sector be forced to adhere to civil rights guidelines, or do they have the right to be selective for any reason?
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#2
Society should pressure them, not the government.
My God, it's full of stars!
#3
Discrimination by color is hurtful, but discrimination by age is just pathetic. Ask Google, they know how to milk 23 - 33 year olds for all their worth. Oh. You're 40? We can't hire you.
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#4
It's my money, I'll hire whoever I want. I obviously wouldn't cater to one gender or race over any other, but simply hire or pick whoever's best for the job.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#5
If I ran a business and wanted to hire a complete idiot just because he was my friend but government legislation told me I had to hire someone else because he was better at the job, I'd be annoyed, but if I was the better person for the job and the business owner hired one of his buddies over me, I'd also be annoyed.

Managing the private sector is always going to be a delicate balance between ensuring private businesses retain the power to hire who they want to hire while also ensuring that they aren't putting people at a disadvantage due to race/background/weird facial moles or whatever, and I sure as hell ain't volunteering to handle that spinning plate.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither... nor women neither.
#6
Quote by Caustic
If I ran a business and wanted to hire a complete idiot just because he was my friend but government legislation told me I had to hire someone else because he was better at the job, I'd be annoyed, but if I was the better person for the job and the business owner hired one of his buddies over me, I'd also be annoyed.

Managing the private sector is always going to be a delicate balance between ensuring private businesses retain the power to hire who they want to hire while also ensuring that they aren't putting people at a disadvantage due to race/background/weird facial moles or whatever, and I sure as hell ain't volunteering to handle that spinning plate.


I agree with this.
#7
Quote by Dreadnought
Society should pressure them, not the government.

I somewhat feel this way too, but I'm unsure. On one hand, there are public institutions that enforce equal opportunity measures. On the other, I am morally opposed to discrimination and the public sector doesn't always provide adequate services, meaning theoretically, if you're black you could be forced to inadequate services. While most places don't have discrimination problems, there are a number of local areas that do.

idk, it's something I'm really on the fence about. I know a lot of people who get mad because there are scholarships for school that go towards a lot of minority groups, and they feel that is "reverse" discrimination. But that bugs me, because for one, most of them are just butthurt well-off white guys, and for two, scholarships come from private donors. So I kind of lean towards yes, but there's still the moral dilemma I have.
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#8
It should be the decision of the buisness fully, also there is no possible way to make it work.

Excuse me mister government, I wasn't hired by this company and look like a spaz, I call shenanigans!

Oh wait, they just hired someone better.
Last edited by Steve635z at Jan 13, 2012,
#9
Quote by Caustic
If I ran a business and wanted to hire a complete idiot just because he was my friend but government legislation told me I had to hire someone else because he was better at the job, I'd be annoyed, but if I was the better person for the job and the business owner hired one of his buddies over me, I'd also be annoyed.

That's not quite what I had in mind, because I think ideally most employers want to hire the most qualified, and how does the government decide who is more qualified anyway? I mean discrimination based on race, handicap, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#10
Quote by Gibson_SG_uzr55
That's not quite what I had in mind, because I think ideally most employers want to hire the most qualified, and how does the government decide who is more qualified anyway? I mean discrimination based on race, handicap, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.


That was just building context and showing how it's a difficult balance legislating the private sector while also making sure private business/establishments retain their control.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither... nor women neither.
#11
Fuck discrimination. People/institutions should have enough sense nowadays to cut this sort of crap
ggg1 ggg3

.
#12
If you've created a club (girl/boy scouts) and don't want to let a certain race or sex join then that's perfectly within your rights as the creator of the club/organization. Is it deplorable for there to be specific discrimination when it comes to race? Most often, yes. But there are certainly times when such discrimination isn't entirely negative. Many schools have specific organizations for race (Hispanic and Asian are the most prominent ones). You gotta be of that denomination/culture to join.

So yes, private institutions should be allowed to discriminate, probably even if it's negative discrimination. That isn't to say that the government can't help in diffusing racial hatred, but it shouldn't be relied upon to change people's opinions. As long as they aren't hateful towards those being discriminated, I don't have a problem with it. And even if they are negative about those being discriminated, I don't have a problem with that except that the ones doing so are archaic assholes of epic proportions.

People can grow and should be tolerant and shit, but it's not the government's responsibility to change their mind. As a society we should definitely pressure these people into changing their discriminatory mindset, but ultimately such things cannot be adequately regulated.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
Last edited by bradulator at Jan 13, 2012,
#13
Quote by behind_you
Fuck discrimination. People/institutions should have enough sense nowadays to cut this sort of crap

Yes, but just because they should doesn't mean they do. So what is to be done?

Quote by Caustic
That was just building context and showing how it's a difficult balance legislating the private sector while also making sure private business/establishments retain their control.

Gotcha
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#14
Quote by Dreadnought
Society should pressure them, not the government.

I like this.

It's our right to choose who we support. If they get the right to discriminate, there should be a way for consumers to find out.
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
#16
It's not discrimination, if a club you create is boy/girl only. It's like a dress code is not discrimination and you not allowing strangers in your house is not. It's just a preposition. Discrimination would be if women wouldn't be let to create such clubs.
Not sure if a sig is a necessity.
#17
Quote by Gibson_SG_uzr55
Yes, but just because they should doesn't mean they do. So what is to be done?


Jokes aside: Depending on the case, anything between pay/funding reduction to charging them in court.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#18
I hate racism... but if a guy who owns property wants to be a dick is going to be racist, that's my own business. I have a very individualistic philosophy--you see, trying to impose morals on others, is like saying you're somehow an authority on what's right and wrong, which is stupid. The only exception would be if the person is physically harming others.

But I think the ridicule the person would receive is punishment enough for narrow-mindedness. One thing I don't think the media understands is that you cannot teach/enforce tolerance. If someone is racist, they are fully aware of it and aren't ignorant of the facts. It just means that they genuinely are shitty people and they don't care.
#19
Employment, no it shouldn't be allowed.

Otherwise, yes they have a legal right to. (In the US) The First Amendment gives people the right to expressive association, that is, who you allow into your organization is a part of what that organization says. Therefore, it is considered protected speech and no laws can force private institutions to do otherwise. (BSA v. Dale: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html)

I may not agree with discrimination, but people have the right to do it, just like they have the right to organize themselves under whatever political, religious, social creed they wish.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
#20
Quote by nincompoop
I hate racism... but if a guy who owns property wants to be a dick is going to be racist, that's my own business. I have a very individualistic philosophy--you see, trying to impose morals on others, is like saying you're somehow an authority on what's right and wrong, which is stupid. The only exception would be if the person is physically harming others.

But I think the ridicule the person would receive is punishment enough for narrow-mindedness. One thing I don't think the media understands is that you cannot teach/enforce tolerance. If someone is racist, they are fully aware of it and aren't ignorant of the facts. It just means that they genuinely are shitty people and they don't care.


I think tolerance can be taught, you just need a willing student, something many ignorant fellows are not.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#21
Quote by behind_you

Jokes aside: Depending on the case, anything between pay/funding reduction to charging them in court.

They're private institutions, so they likely aren't getting much funding
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#22
Quote by Gibson_SG_uzr55
They're private institutions, so they likely aren't getting much funding
I remember some private institutions getting large grants every now and then.

Also, as I said, it depends on the case.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#24
This coming from the perspective of straight white males lol.


Ashley
Just a sub-par guitar player..

Quote by darkstar2466
Let's make this the Pit's motto:

"Forever alone, together"



IS THIS FREEDOM, OR CONFINEMENT?! FREE MOSCOE_ESPANOL!!!
#25
Quote by son_of_bodom
This coming from the perspective of straight white males lol.


Ashley

Hey, you're discriminating by ignoring due!
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#26
I'm fine with them discriminating in theory, however in practise it's a lot more complex. In theory if a company discriminates then another one will not discriminate, become more successful, and out compete, eliminating the problem. However because of the nature of capitalism, as it is currently practised at least, this will not always happen. Barriers to entry into an industry, coupled with the almost monopoly power of certain long established players, can give one company serious power. These companies would have the ability to discriminate at will with no consequences, particularly if the group discriminated against was small and/or hated enough.

Take, as an example, a black man owning a bar in Ireland. Now, anyone who has ever worked in a bar here will know that about 90% of all the beers sold are provided by a company called Diagio. Maybe one or two products, Heineken and some brands of Cider, come from other distributors.
Suppose that Diagio decide that they are not going to sell beer to the handful of black barowners in Ireland. That essentially blocks black people from an entire industry, potentially forever because Diagio has an extreme market dominance in an industry with high barriers to entry (some regulatory but also significant organic ones).

This isn't a particularly strange example, the same thing occurs in numerous industries.

Thing is, those who take the point of view that companies should be allowed to discriminate, generally do so on the assumption that market forces will prevent it anyway. This is simply factually incorrect in a number of cases.
The question essentially boils down to both faith in market forces, and subsequently whether or not you believe that the right to discriminate over-rides the right to do whatever the discriminator is denying. In some cases I reckon it does, in others, probably not. Your rights end where another's begin, in this case both parties have rights, the issue is assigning priority.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#27
Quote by Gibson_SG_uzr55
Hey, you're discriminating by ignoring due!



I forgot mah nigga due.


Ashley
Just a sub-par guitar player..

Quote by darkstar2466
Let's make this the Pit's motto:

"Forever alone, together"



IS THIS FREEDOM, OR CONFINEMENT?! FREE MOSCOE_ESPANOL!!!
Last edited by son_of_bodom at Jan 13, 2012,
#28
No, and I could've sworn this question was settled with the Civil Rights Act half a century ago. Then again, pointlessly resurrecting debates like these seems to be the libertarian movement's forte. This and shit like "Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant for interfering with state's rights!!"
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#29
You should probably specify what forms of discrimination it is that you are talking about.
#30
Quote by Nosferatu Man
You should probably specify what forms of discrimination it is that you are talking about.

It's not against the Jews, you probably wouldn't be into it.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#31
Quote by Nosferatu Man
You should probably specify what forms of discrimination it is that you are talking about.

Any form. Race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, nation of origin, religion. Anything that isn't merit based.
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#32
Quote by Dreadnought
Society should pressure them, not the government.


First post win.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#33
yes, they should
Quote by korinaflyingv
On the come up we were listening to Grateful Dead and the music started passing through my bowel and out my arsehole as this violet stream of light. I shat music. It was beautiful.
#34
Discrimination is the fruit of life.


*trollface*
You want some more seeneyj hate? WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE IT

You're all a bunch of f*cking slaves! - Jim Morrison

UG Awards
1st: Biggest Ego
1st: Most Likely To Become Famous
1st: Most Pretentious User
#36
Quote by Caustic
If I ran a business and wanted to hire a complete idiot just because he was my friend but government legislation told me I had to hire someone else because he was better at the job, I'd be annoyed, but if I was the better person for the job and the business owner hired one of his buddies over me, I'd also be annoyed.

Managing the private sector is always going to be a delicate balance between ensuring private businesses retain the power to hire who they want to hire while also ensuring that they aren't putting people at a disadvantage due to race/background/weird facial moles or whatever, and I sure as hell ain't volunteering to handle that spinning plate.



Nailed it.


Quote by Paquijón
Sure they should be able to discriminate. Likewise they have the right to accept the consequences for their actions, in this case potentially less business and likely public scrutiny.



But as Paddy (can I call you Paddy? Are we bros, bro?) pointed out a few posts ago, when a company has a monopoly or near monopoly on a product, their discriminatory policies will have fewer consequences.
Check out my band Disturbed
Last edited by StewieSwan at Jan 14, 2012,
#37
I put undecided. If you hold (as I do) that discrimination is morally wrong, citing market powers or societal pressures as a solution is inadequate. It works under the assumption that the market constantly corrects itself and even if it is true, it's still not a very concrete form of rights protection.

However, I still understand that the state does/should not possess power to interfere with one's freedom of association. In addition, legislation on something as vague as discrimination would probably have as many holes as swiss cheese
Last edited by Cianyx at Jan 14, 2012,
#38
Quote by StewieSwan

But as Paddy (can I call you Paddy? Are we bros, bro?) pointed out a few posts ago, when a company has a monopoly or near monopoly on a product, their discriminatory policies will have fewer consequences.

You may.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#39
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I'm fine with them discriminating in theory, however in practise it's a lot more complex. In theory if a company discriminates then another one will not discriminate, become more successful, and out compete, eliminating the problem. However because of the nature of capitalism, as it is currently practised at least, this will not always happen. Barriers to entry into an industry, coupled with the almost monopoly power of certain long established players, can give one company serious power. These companies would have the ability to discriminate at will with no consequences, particularly if the group discriminated against was small and/or hated enough.

Take, as an example, a black man owning a bar in Ireland. Now, anyone who has ever worked in a bar here will know that about 90% of all the beers sold are provided by a company called Diagio. Maybe one or two products, Heineken and some brands of Cider, come from other distributors.
Suppose that Diagio decide that they are not going to sell beer to the handful of black barowners in Ireland. That essentially blocks black people from an entire industry, potentially forever because Diagio has an extreme market dominance in an industry with high barriers to entry (some regulatory but also significant organic ones).

This isn't a particularly strange example, the same thing occurs in numerous industries.

Thing is, those who take the point of view that companies should be allowed to discriminate, generally do so on the assumption that market forces will prevent it anyway. This is simply factually incorrect in a number of cases.
The question essentially boils down to both faith in market forces, and subsequently whether or not you believe that the right to discriminate over-rides the right to do whatever the discriminator is denying. In some cases I reckon it does, in others, probably not. Your rights end where another's begin, in this case both parties have rights, the issue is assigning priority.


+1

i'd also say that, when companies operate unpopular policies, rather than forcing them to change what normally happens is that they just try harder to keep it hidden, hire a PR firm or whatever.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#40
Quote by Dave_Mc
+1

i'd also say that, when companies operate unpopular policies, rather than forcing them to change what normally happens is that they just try harder to keep it hidden, hire a PR firm or whatever.

Hell, for lots of companies it doesn't even matter. Sticking with my example of Diagio, for the general public Guinness is the brand name, Carlsburg, Smithwicks, etc; Diagio means fuck all to them.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Page 1 of 2