andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> To use an example that Darren also used: you don't need a law to allow 
> heterosexual men to marry other men.

  That example makes no sense. Either the law allows it or it doesn't.
The sexual orientation plays no role from the point of view of the law
(or the concept of how necessary the law might be).

  If the law allows same-sex marriage, the law applies to everybody
equally, and that's how it should be. It makes no distinction.

  However, if law eg. allowed only men to marry men, but not women to
marry women, *then* it would be discriminatory. (Likewise if it only
allowed eg. natural-born citizens to do so but not people who are not
citizens but were not so originally. Or the other way around.)

> In the same vain a law that prohibits an employer to look at the 
> ethnicity of an employee is superfluous, but may take the form of a 
> requirement that a group employees should include a certain number of 
> minority members.

  That would be a blatantly contradictory law. It's saying "employers
must not take ethnicity into account, but employers must take ethnicity
into account".

> (Often deemed discrimination by many members of the majority

  I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that it's discriminatory,
regardless of which minority or majority they happen to belong to.

> but in certain circumstances possibly vital to prevent the 
> society from breaking in pieces)

  I think it's a sad society where discrimination is necessary for it to
not to "break in pieces".

> In the Netherlands any group of parents is allowed to start their own 
> school, that then will get funded by the government. A law that dates 
> back to the beginning of the 20th century, mainly meant for the 
> different Christian churches. Muslims are now also using these rights. 
> In practice some (or many, as some claim) of these schools are below 
> standard and hamper integration of muslim groups with the rest of 
> society. Legislation was proposed (and possibly even passed, I did not 
> follow it that well) to try to remedy these problems. A law that was 
> worded objectively, but everyone knows that it is not meant for 
> Christian schools and it will only be used to shut down non-Christian 
> minority schools. Discrimination or just a conflict of human rights?

  Conflicts of interests between what is better for the entirety of the
society and what some minority group wants happen all the time. The
stance that should be taken is the one which benefits everyone, not the
one that benefits the minority, especially if it degrades the quality
of the society as a whole.

  What does this have to do with discrimination, though?

> >    (And, again, I'm here talking about the "minorities" that are so only
> > in terms of inconsequential things, such as ethnic background. Of course
> > other minorities, such as people with disabilities, may need special
> > treatment as a practical necessity. I'm not talking about them.)

> I have seen it argued that a law that forces an employer to have at 
> least a number of employers with disabilities is also discriminatory.

  Why does the burden of sustaining a disabled person be cast upon one
single employer? How is it fair for that employer? What has he done to
deserve that duty? Why cannot it be cast upon everybody fairly (ie. by
taxation)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message