You can say what you want, but you still don\’t know. It\’s very easy to make an assumption about a topic that might upset you. You can rationalize all you want about the number of men in the country, or the number of men in the area, or the number of men that want to work at a job that caters to women, but that doesn\’t make it fact. I worked at a retail agency about 5 years ago. There were thirty employees and 5 of us were men. That\’s just one from my own personal experience. I didn\’t say there wasn\’t discrimination, but you\’re assuming there was. It\’s a serious problem when people start making assumptions about things they don\’t know about. For instance, people often make assumption about the guilt of people in court cases when they know nothing or very little of the facts. That\’s a dangerous road to go down.
Any business should be able legally to deny employment or services to anyone for whatever reason. This liberty is more important to a free society than people\’s \”right\” to work or shop wherever they want. The Constitution was written to protect rights, not feelings.
It would be a sin to deny employment or services to someone based on his race, but it shouldn\’t be a crime.
Fair enough, but that\’s not what I was talking about. All I meant to say is that it\’s dangerous to make assumptions about a situation when you don\’t have all the facts.
Maybe at some point, legislation will do away with the ADA, and the sort. Michigan did recently stop using affirmative action. Maybe some day the country will be like you like it. You can always hope.
But I\’m not discriminating right? Hispanics don\’t like or need kimchi, so they\’re not going to apply to drive my trucks right?
Only one out of ten applicants for an opening at my stores to sell kimchi are going to be hispanic right? Why would they want to get paid to sell a product they don\’t like and don\’t eat?
Get the point?
It looks a little different now that we\’re talking about race, and not sex, doesn\’t it?
I think it\’s perfectly safe to assume there\’s discrimination.
And, the difference between not hiring 10 guys (on average) at your job and this company not hiring 2000 men (on average) is pretty significant.
I\’m making assumptions, but I\’m using math to support them.
By the way- I agree with Dykeman. Discrimination should be legal. If you want to ignore a complete group of qualified employees and moneyed customers I\’ll let you.
BET and Ebony make good money catering to a market you shun, and if you think that Barack Obama, Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren\’t worth hiring I\’ll be glad to look at their resumes.
We shouldn\’t outlaw stupidity. We should outcompete stupid people and consign their children to working at McDonalds and Wal~Mart.
Like I said, there\’s nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. I discriminated against every black and Asian woman when I married a Swedish/Irish gal. For me to have a sign on the door of my barber shop that says \”WHITES ONLY\” is understandable, right? It might be less understandable and somewhat boorish to have the same sign on my theater or diner, but so what? Doesn\’t the 1st Amendment guaranty freedom of association? Is your right to eat at my lunch counter more important than my right to run my business as I see fit? Now, government should be colorblind in all respects because everyone pays taxes. But to say that a country club must allow women or eskimoes or whatever is to deny people liberties to a degree that our founders would never have tolerated.
As I said, it is a sin to deny services to people based on race in a private establishment (except perhaps things like barber shops and the like, where people must specialize to some degree). I may have the right as a citizen to force a man to explain to his son why they can\’t eat in my diner, but I do not have that right before God. But I don\’t think that we want government to punish every sin, do we?
You must be new to this website. Take a look at the posts made above your last post to get a feel for what we\’re dealing with here. Something I\’ve learned is to just save your breath (or your keystrokes in this case). You would do better to talk to a brick wall.
Some of us actually appreciate a well reasoned argument.
And, although I support allowing people to discriminate if they choose to do so, I personally will not. I thought my last post made that clear.
If Shocked can come up with better refutation than \”You don\’t know for sure\” I will be happy to listen.
I used simple math, the common law of averages, and argument re-framing to show that the company in the article is probably discriminating.
If you view my argument as being fundamentally the same as the morons talking about \”barefoot, in the kitchen\”, then you should re-read my posts.
If you are not lumping me into that simian sub-category, then thank you, and I agree. People who make statements like that are not capable of rational discourse and should be ignored.
I resent your implication that my responses aren\’t credible just because you don\’t agree with me. Maybe my line was not conducive to this specific topic, but believe me, I still stand by my beliefs and have no problem stating them. The womens\’ libbers of this country have ruined it as well. Latch key kids, unwed mothers, abortions at will, etc. I could go on, but that is for another board. All I can say is this country was better off when men were the primary bread winners and the women stayed home and took care of the kids.
Really. I mean, this thread started as a debate about a preggers woman not getting hired. It\’s ridiculous on the face of it that some gal would expect to get hired when her belly tells the interviewer that she\’s going to take off a few months right after getting hired. How does her inevitable absence help the company?
And if she were knocked up instead of married, her absenteeism would be much higher than if she were married becuase of kiddie sick days and doctor visits. But here she is making a living off of suing companies that are living in the real world, while she is living in the feminist construct of government-granted rights. It boggles the mind.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
You can say what you want, but you still don\’t know. It\’s very easy to make an assumption about a topic that might upset you. You can rationalize all you want about the number of men in the country, or the number of men in the area, or the number of men that want to work at a job that caters to women, but that doesn\’t make it fact. I worked at a retail agency about 5 years ago. There were thirty employees and 5 of us were men. That\’s just one from my own personal experience. I didn\’t say there wasn\’t discrimination, but you\’re assuming there was. It\’s a serious problem when people start making assumptions about things they don\’t know about. For instance, people often make assumption about the guilt of people in court cases when they know nothing or very little of the facts. That\’s a dangerous road to go down.
P.S. Thanks for correcting the \”mail\” typo.
Any business should be able legally to deny employment or services to anyone for whatever reason. This liberty is more important to a free society than people\’s \”right\” to work or shop wherever they want. The Constitution was written to protect rights, not feelings.
It would be a sin to deny employment or services to someone based on his race, but it shouldn\’t be a crime.
Dykeman,
Fair enough, but that\’s not what I was talking about. All I meant to say is that it\’s dangerous to make assumptions about a situation when you don\’t have all the facts.
Maybe at some point, legislation will do away with the ADA, and the sort. Michigan did recently stop using affirmative action. Maybe some day the country will be like you like it. You can always hope.
Let\’s say I operate a business. That business employes 5000 people across several states.
Let\’s say that business makes and distributes kimchi, a food item that appeals to mostly (but not exclusively) people with Korean heritage.
Let\’s say each of my stores is located in an urban area with a poulation that is roughly 50% Korean, and roughly 50% hispanic.
Let\’s say that I, and all of my management team, are Korean and we REALLY like kimchi.
Now let\’s say that only 10% of my employees are hispanic.
Counter clerks, truck drivers, accountants, store managers. 90% Korean, 10% hispanic.
But I\’m not discriminating right? Hispanics don\’t like or need kimchi, so they\’re not going to apply to drive my trucks right?
Only one out of ten applicants for an opening at my stores to sell kimchi are going to be hispanic right? Why would they want to get paid to sell a product they don\’t like and don\’t eat?
Get the point?
It looks a little different now that we\’re talking about race, and not sex, doesn\’t it?
I think it\’s perfectly safe to assume there\’s discrimination.
And, the difference between not hiring 10 guys (on average) at your job and this company not hiring 2000 men (on average) is pretty significant.
I\’m making assumptions, but I\’m using math to support them.
By the way- I agree with Dykeman. Discrimination should be legal. If you want to ignore a complete group of qualified employees and moneyed customers I\’ll let you.
BET and Ebony make good money catering to a market you shun, and if you think that Barack Obama, Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren\’t worth hiring I\’ll be glad to look at their resumes.
We shouldn\’t outlaw stupidity. We should outcompete stupid people and consign their children to working at McDonalds and Wal~Mart.
Like I said, there\’s nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. I discriminated against every black and Asian woman when I married a Swedish/Irish gal. For me to have a sign on the door of my barber shop that says \”WHITES ONLY\” is understandable, right? It might be less understandable and somewhat boorish to have the same sign on my theater or diner, but so what? Doesn\’t the 1st Amendment guaranty freedom of association? Is your right to eat at my lunch counter more important than my right to run my business as I see fit? Now, government should be colorblind in all respects because everyone pays taxes. But to say that a country club must allow women or eskimoes or whatever is to deny people liberties to a degree that our founders would never have tolerated.
As I said, it is a sin to deny services to people based on race in a private establishment (except perhaps things like barber shops and the like, where people must specialize to some degree). I may have the right as a citizen to force a man to explain to his son why they can\’t eat in my diner, but I do not have that right before God. But I don\’t think that we want government to punish every sin, do we?
Shocked,
You must be new to this website. Take a look at the posts made above your last post to get a feel for what we\’re dealing with here. Something I\’ve learned is to just save your breath (or your keystrokes in this case). You would do better to talk to a brick wall.
Some of us actually appreciate a well reasoned argument.
And, although I support allowing people to discriminate if they choose to do so, I personally will not. I thought my last post made that clear.
If Shocked can come up with better refutation than \”You don\’t know for sure\” I will be happy to listen.
I used simple math, the common law of averages, and argument re-framing to show that the company in the article is probably discriminating.
If you view my argument as being fundamentally the same as the morons talking about \”barefoot, in the kitchen\”, then you should re-read my posts.
If you are not lumping me into that simian sub-category, then thank you, and I agree. People who make statements like that are not capable of rational discourse and should be ignored.
I resent your implication that my responses aren\’t credible just because you don\’t agree with me. Maybe my line was not conducive to this specific topic, but believe me, I still stand by my beliefs and have no problem stating them. The womens\’ libbers of this country have ruined it as well. Latch key kids, unwed mothers, abortions at will, etc. I could go on, but that is for another board. All I can say is this country was better off when men were the primary bread winners and the women stayed home and took care of the kids.
Really. I mean, this thread started as a debate about a preggers woman not getting hired. It\’s ridiculous on the face of it that some gal would expect to get hired when her belly tells the interviewer that she\’s going to take off a few months right after getting hired. How does her inevitable absence help the company?
And if she were knocked up instead of married, her absenteeism would be much higher than if she were married becuase of kiddie sick days and doctor visits. But here she is making a living off of suing companies that are living in the real world, while she is living in the feminist construct of government-granted rights. It boggles the mind.