dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/08/85)
[] Some background (source - New York Times, Wed. May 8, pg. 1): In 1980, Mayor Koch gave an executive order forbidding job discrimination based on "sexual orientation or affectional preference," as well sex, religion, and a few other things. This order applied to all concerns doing work under contracts with the city. It was upheld on May 7 by an appeals court, and will now go to the state supreme court. In arguing against the order, the archdiocese of New York said that the Mayor lacked the legal authority to "elevate homosexual and bisexual preference and practice to a protected class" under the law. SINCE F***ING WHEN does the right to earn a living make you a "protected class"? Isaac Dimitrovsky
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/09/85)
>/* dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) / 10:08 am May 8, 1985 */ >SINCE F***ING WHEN does the right to earn a living make you a >"protected class"? > >Isaac Dimitrovsky If coercion is used to get an employer to hire someone, and the ostensible reason for the use of force is that the employer is unwilling to hire that person because of his/her membership in some group (organized or unorganized) of people, then you and all others in that group are members of a "protected class." Michael Sykora
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/09/85)
[] > >If coercion is used to get an employer to hire someone, and the ostensible >reason for the use of force is that the employer is unwilling to hire >that person because of his/her membership in some group (organized or >unorganized) of people, then you and all others in that group are members of >a "protected class." What if the *real* reason for the use of force is that the employer is unwilling to hire that person, etc. ? By the way, I don't see how force is being used except in an economic sense. Now, if a private company wants to discriminate against a group, I guess that's their business, just as it could then be the business of the group to raise hell about it and thus damage the companies business in return. But I don't think the government has any business with such companies. Isaac Dimitrovsky
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/10/85)
>/* dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) / 11:20 am May 9, 1985 */ [] > >> >>If coercion is used to get an employer to hire someone, and the ostensible >>reason for the use of force is that the employer is unwilling to hire >>that person because of his/her membership in some group (organized or >>unorganized) of people, then you and all others in that group are members of >>a "protected class." >What if the *real* reason for the use of force is that the employer is >unwilling to hire that person, etc. ? > >By the way, I don't see how force is being used except in an economic sense. Let's say that the city gov't. is deciding whether to contract with employer A, who dicriminates against group X, and employer B, who doesn't. Theoretically, the problem only arises when employer A charges less than employer B (under the probably ludicrous assumption that the city gov't. tries to use its funds most efficiently). In order to contract with employer A as opposed to employer B, all other things (revenues/spending) being equal, the city must collect more taxes, hence apply more coercion to the taxpayers. Thus, the city is using coercion in order to raise the level of employment of group X, thereby making the members of group X a protected class. Note, that if a private company were to contract with employer A rather than with employer B, whether because of the discrimination or anything else, there would be no coercion involved, since the private company (ostensibly) obtains its profits through non-coercive means. >Now, if a private company wants to discriminate against a group, I guess >that's their business, just as it could then be the business of the group >to raise hell about it and thus damage the companies business in return. >But I don't think the government has any business with such companies. > >Isaac Dimitrovsky I agree. Note also, that I am not advocating that the city contract with firms that dicriminate. Personally, I do not believe that the city should be involved in most of the activities with which it is in fact involved in. Michael Sykora
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/16/85)
>If coercion is used to get an employer to hire someone, and the ostensible >reason for the use of force is that the employer is unwilling to hire >that person because of his/her membership in some group (organized or >unorganized) of people, then you and all others in that group are members of >a "protected class." > > Michael Sykora What if it is something like "No discrimination on basis of race/sex/religion/ national origin"? Everyone is included in these 'protected classes'. Merlyn Leroy
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/21/85)
If all groups do not receive the same amount of protection, then some groups are 'protected classes.' If all groups receive the same amount of protection, then why not just get rid of the protections entirely? Mike Sykora
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/23/85)
In article <1340098@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > If all groups do not receive the same amount of protection, then some > groups are 'protected classes.' Groovy. Now, how do you measure protection? By dollars? By federal programs? Or by effectiveness of the protection? If we all expect to be protected from discrimination, and minorities are less effectively protected then which is the protected class? > If all groups receive the same amount of protection, then why not just get > rid of the protections entirely? If we are all clothed adequately, why not get rid of the clothing entirely? :-( You know, it's attitudes like yours, Mike, that are slowly convincing me (by example) of Marxist ideas like "class interests". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/24/85)
>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 5:29 pm May 22, 1985 */ >> If all groups do not receive the same amount of protection, then some >> groups are 'protected classes.' >Groovy. Now, how do you measure protection? By dollars? By federal programs? >Or by effectiveness of the protection? If we all expect to be protected from >discrimination, and minorities are less effectively protected then which is the >protected class? You are quite right that it is ludicrous to measure such things. However, it is not essential to the point I am making to be able to measure them. My intention was to show that since protections are either equal or unequal, and in one case they amount to the forced advancement of one group at the expense of another (when unequal), and in the other they amount to a needless inefficiency (when equal), they should be eliminated. >> If all groups receive the same amount of protection, then why not just get >> rid of the protections entirely? >If we are all clothed adequately, why not get rid of the clothing entirely? > >:-( Analogy? >You know, it's attitudes like yours, Mike, that are slowly convincing me >(by example) of Marxist ideas like "class interests". > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Do attitudes really persuade you regarding the validity of ideas?! In any event, you can't refute an argument by criticizing the arguer, even if those criticisms are valid. Mike Sykora