andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > 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).

> It definitely does. In most countries samesex mariage is the only one 
> allowed, that is blatant discrimination of homosexuals, at least 
> according to your rigid standards.

  So there are discriminatory laws in many countries. I know that, you
know that, everybody knows that. So? What do you think I'm arguing here?

  Do you think I would be arguing if there were no discriminatory laws?

  I really don't understand why you keep bringing out this odd "there are
discriminatory laws in many countries" argument. I *know* that. And that's
precisely why I'm ranting. What is your point?

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

> Welcome in the real world, these laws do exist and for the stated reason.

  Well, why do you think I'm ranting? I *know* they exist. That's precisely
the reason. I don't understand your point.

  If your point is "that's just how it is, and you should simply learn to
submit and conform", then we just have to disagree. I won't. I refuse.

  Is it such a bad thing to dream about a world where everybody is equal
and nobody is treated differently?

> >    Conflicts of interests between what is better for the entirety of the
> > society and what some minority group wants happen all the time.

> that is not the point.

  Then why do you keep bringing up these examples of discrimination and
conflicts of interest? What *is* your point?

> > 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?

> Muslims are discriminated against in order to conform to other 
> international treaties about education.

  No, muslims in your example want preferential treatment (which, in this
case, would be harmful to their children's education). It's precisely *not*
giving them this special treatment that would be the correct course of
action. Refusing to give preferential treatment to a group of people is
not discrimination. It's the opposite.

  (If the christians in your example are also getting preferential treatment,
it makes no difference. It shouldn't be the case either.)

> >    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)?

> In general one person only has one employer. The only way to spread the 
> burden (or perceived burden, as people with disabilities can make very 
> poor employees) evenly is to not let them work at all.

  If the handicapped person is capable of performing his job, there's no
reason for him to be hired, especially if he is qualified and competent,
and refusing to hire a person which would otherwise qualify because he's
handicapped would be discrimination and should be dealt with accordingly.

  However, imposing mandatory hiring quotas, even in cases where the person
is clearly not qualified for the job, is more harmful than useful.

  People should do the jobs they are qualified for. For example I am not
qualified as a surgeon, hence nobody should hire me as one, and that's how
it should be.

> As I said before: In a society with different social groups you can 
> either have equal treatment or equal chances.

  I still see no reason why they are mutually exclusive.

> Your rigorous adherence to equal treatment will lead to unequal chances 
> for many.

  I don't see why, except if people deliberately discriminate against some
people (which is the thing to fight against).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message