Prejudice

[Shadow Wolf]

It is discriminatory.

I would add that I don’t think such a thing should be illegal. But then again if you were discriminating odds are I’d opt to not use your services.

What if there are no other options?

 

[Truth in love]

What if there are no other options?

Such events would be very rare and likely short term. Social pressure and financial need can really limit a person from engaging in discrimination even if it is how they feel. And if they do feel that strongly about something I Don’t think we need to jail them or ban them from society.

Females only for hooter girls, Hispanics serving in Mexican restraints etc. if we are too picky then every business, club etc will need Congress’ approval for their employment manual.

If we let people choose freely I think things will work out almost always.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Such events would be very rare and likely short term. Social pressure and financial need can really limit a person from engaging in discrimination even if it is how they feel. And if they do feel that strongly about something I Don’t think we need to jail them or ban them from society.

It's more likely in rural settings. And it doesn't work out well. A pizza joint in Indiana, for example, got millions in support because they vocalized they would discriminate against LGBT under Pence's RFRA.

 

[Truth in love]

It's more likely in rural settings. And it doesn't work out well. A pizza joint in Indiana, for example, got millions in support because they vocalized they would discriminate against LGBT under Pence's RFRA.

Do what’s the alternative? Drive people with strong views out of business? Deprive anyone who fails a new political correctness test their rights?
I don’t want to see anyone mistreated and that includes the florets, bakers, and whoever else holds a value that some in society reject.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do what’s the alternative? Drive people with strong views out of business? Deprive anyone who fails a new political correctness test their rights?
I don’t want to see anyone mistreated and that includes the florets, bakers, and whoever else holds a value that some in society reject.

Or we just adopt the attitude that if you serve the public you serve the public.

 

[ChristineM]

Would it be prejudicial to start/run a business, but only hire persons that are LGBTQ or Black?

Like, you're not being actively discriminated against imo, because you're turning away everyone, unless they are Gay or Black.

Is this racist, or prejudicial?

Would the tables be turned if I was hiring only White persons? If so, why?

Hire whoever is best for the job, don't let race or sexual preference interfere.

Any discrimination leaves you open to the charge of prejudice.

 

[wellwisher]

Idk. If you're only hiring a particular protected class, against all the others, I'm not sure it's exactly prejudiced.

To me prejudicial hiring requires a power dynamic in favor of a majority over a minority group.

This is a self serving misconception, created and taught by the political left, due to the commandeering of language. Words are redefined and then repeated to create new definitions based on dual standards instead of equal justice for all. You parrot the new slang long enough, until it shows up at the top of Google searches.

Back in the day, a racist was anyone who judged other humans by the superficial and stereo-typical qualities of their race. The racist stayed in the shallows of observations, and did not or could not judge people, as individuals, apart from the shallows on the surface.

Dr Martin Luther King used the old definition when it said; to paraphrase, judge not by the color of skin; shallows, but by the content of character; depths of character. Character is something we have to develop. It is not something one is born with or into, like race. Race is something we have no control over. But character is what makes us individuals, and applies to people of all races, who work hard to develop themselves. Dr King saw men and women of character in all races.

The commandeering of language redefined racism to mean similar thing, but with some extra conditions. The old definition of racism was defined to only applied to the majority. The exact same behavior; all duck quack, is not racist, by the new definition, if you are part of any minority, or you are a white leader or activists on the Left.

The minorities do not seem to catch the irony of how the racists are. This definition of racism is from a group of racist leaders, since it assumes only the majority has the brain power to dig deeper than the surface and willpower to develop character. The minorities are assumed to be of limited mental capacity, and therefore need a weaker standard; wade in the shallows. It does not assume that there are members of any minorities who are smart enough to be above racism, and live up to the standard of the old definition; character. The new definition only assumes only white Republican can do this, which is why the white Democrats, by definition, number themselves among the weaker of mind and will. Based on the economy they may be right.

Part of the reason the minorities willing accepted the dumb down standard, was this dual standard from the mouth of racists, was used to create a dual justice system, such the quota system. Making this deal, with the devil; binary system like good and evil, then keeps minorities down and obligated, which was the intent of the racist language game by the leadership. Character allows the cream to float to the top. Prejudice is for the small mind that tends to sink.

 

[wellwisher]

The commandeering of language has led to many social problems. One of the worse was the Leftist redefinition of the word, rights. In the Constitution, rights apply to all people. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was meant to apply to all. There was no such thing as men's rights or women's rights, but one set of rights that applies to all. The Constitution was about human transcending the limitations of monarchies, where dual justice and entitlements were the rule.

The analogy is playing sports. There is one set of rules in baseball, that applies to all, from pee wee to professional. This level playing field for all allows for differences of skills and outcomes, as long as the same rules apply to all. Sports are set up different from the monarchy, where the Prince has to win all the time, or off with your head.

The term women's rights is part of the new word scam. Rights were redefined to only to one demographic. Can anyone name me any men's rights that women have no part in?

The Leftist word game tries to confuse the word rights; applies to all, with the word entitlements, which are not rights but a throwback to the monarchies. An entitlement is based on dual standards; binary, Satan, good and evil. It assume a dual justice system with two or more standards. The extra standard is more or less a bonus or bride for loyalty to one side, at the expense of all.

The women's right to abortion, is not a right, since it excludes the father, who was part of the induction dynamics. It is a dual standard entitlement designed to exclude the rights of the father. Women use the monarchies approach and the divine rights of kings and queens, but not of free people.

I remember when women started the journey from the isolated mother and housewife to a full part of culture. Women gradually infiltrated into all areas of culture, including those that had once been occupied by men, including police, fire, and even private clubs. It became taboo for one sex to have an extra entitlements since we all had rights.

Once things got even, the women started to do the very things they complained about. They allowed entitlements, redefined as rights, exclusive to only women. This was all pushed by Leftist male professors and lawyers, since it was easy to lie to women. The is a slippery slope since men will need to define their own right/entitlements as king, just as the queen has hers. This is not rights, but the act of balancing entitlements to approximate rights.

In sports, this would be like the empire with a wide strike zone, beyond the rules, that he applies to all hitters on both sides. This may seem fair but this breaks the rules of rights. Or the empire calls outs, arbitrarily, but tries to cheat elsewhere for balance, which may not always be balanced due to the context of each inning. Right become watered down since outcome is out of the hands of the individuals to some self serving arbitrator.