Is anti-discrimination legislation an attack on our liberties? - anti aging association
Do we have the right to not hire or could not be used or offensive for any reason someone? If we are prevented, it is not an attack on freedom of contract, association and freedom of expression? In the case of do not want nothing to do with the sex of a person is not "evil", age, race or disability as a Thought Crime?
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/philoso ...
General philosophical debate
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Philoso ...
PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION SINGLETON
http://www.1party4all.co.uk
Confidence in their PRINCIPLES, no political parties GOLD!
Anti Aging Association Is Anti-discrimination Legislation An Attack On Our Liberties?
4 comments:
The real question is whether there is a net gain of free society. The freedoms that everyone should not be granted to the detriment of disadvantaged groups.
To the extent that society values equality, laws to ensure that all citizens will adopt equal access to education, employment, contract, association and political participation.
In particular, the freedom of expression can be restricted. The thoughts and words should be as free as possible. Only facts can be offensive.
It is an attack on our freedoms, except to the extent that the government is making unlawful discrimination because the Government does not discriminate against anyone, except to the extent that the gaps in state requirements for discrimination. Thus the laws of racial segregation in the southern United States against blacks and should be illegal, is bad but in the private sector, unless the person is a monopoly.
Andromeda Oh, what a soft heart. OK, the answer to your question, I pose the question for you. You are about to be raped by two white men aged between 35 and 41. One of them says to another: "When you are ready to kill." And suddenly there were two men, one is 19 and has a deformed left arm. And the other is 59 years and tattered clothes and the smell of urine yesterday. Grasp the two men about rape and kill you to throw and communicated. Now is the "choice" into the game, arrived in this situation? Even his two rescuers, African Americans and Jews, in the last month.
When we describe to be "open"
Of course, they are entitled to equal, or do not interact with the person, but we want to. However, this right comes the responsibility as offensive because they can and because they have this right.
The subtext of the "voice" that is, in essence, prevents us from treating people as individuals, that "I can not say as Maya Angelou, if people think I` m `` I can not really rascist as if Boy George `m gay", etc.
Post a Comment