The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community

Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF

Forum Rules
& FAQ


Username

Password


Create a New Account

 
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index

Attn: VivianC by Ravenlock2006-11-19 12:55:59
  Close Enough by VivianC2005-10-06 09:58:54
    unrelated. please discuss the topic at hand. by unjust2005-10-06 10:27:23
      I have no idea of the parameters anymore by VivianC2005-10-06 11:28:39
        Well, you clearly have some idea... by Ravenlock 2005-10-06 12:56:36
either that or you accidentally answered the question at hand. :-p I kind of doubt that, though, since you used the words "back to the original discussion."
Back to the original discussion, I still believe that an organization has the right to hire whoever they want. If you are a religious organization, you are free to limit your membership to religious people, however you define that. Block grants should not exclude groups based on their faith.

Freedom is messy. Either everyone gets it or no one does. If I am told I am free to have my faith as long as I act like everyone else, where is the freedom?
On the second part, nonsense. Specifically, nonsense to "either everyone gets it or no one does." Everyone getting total freedom is called "anarchy", and it isn't a system of government. As a society we have rules about what people can and cannot do to each other, based on the knowledge that without those rules the things people choose to do to each other would be bad.

For the first part, though, it sounds to me like you're just against equal opportunity hiring laws. Your statement could very easily be construed to mean that if I just don't like women or Buddhists, I can turn them away at the door regardless of their qualifications - without even meeting them - and be well within my rights.

Is that an accurate summary of your position? If so, it's pretty clear why you took the side in this that you did, but I'd guess it's a view wildly disparate from that of most people on the board, and certainly isn't in line with what Americans have formed as law - indeed, that situation I described is precisely one of the "bad things" we've written legislation to stop people from doing to each other.

Granted, "bad" is often in the eye of the beholder, and equal opportunity employment laws ARE sometimes used by bad people against employers. I believe, how ever, that they are much more frequently used to legitimately help employees (or would-be employees) stuck with scummy employers. The have-nots don't typically trample the haves, you see.
[ Reply ]
          I really more for freedom of association. by VivianC2005-10-06 14:46:03
            Now, that's just snarky. by Ravenlock2005-10-06 15:17:48

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)