RobDownSouth
Never Banhammered
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 72,727
After reading some of the posts about companies controlling their employees, then perhaps the requirement about not hiring because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc needs to be lifted.
For example, if a company who supports gays is allowed to not hire those who don't support that lifestyle, then there will never be a worry about them stepping out of bounds about what they say or do.
Same is with a Christian company. Same with any company having to do with race, etc.
I know this won't happen, just trying to make a small point. As long as the government has a say so over who companies can and cannot hire, then there will always be people who have differing opinions and a good chance they will share them at some point.
I guess it can't be both ways. Either people are free to speak as they wish (and not have their job in jeopardy) or companies need to freedom to hire whomever they wish.
Nonsense. You've presented a classic false dilemma.
There are two distinct categories here: 'status' and 'conduct'.
The law protects the 'status' of people, factors that they have no control over: Sex, race, national origin, etc. Most recently courts have added "sexual orientation" as more people realize that sexual orientation is innate and not a choice (and yes, I recognize that you are of the opinion that "heterosexuality" is innate and "homosexuality" is a choice, but then your entire life seems to be devoted to double standards).
Employment law does not protect your conduct in the workplace. Period.
As an aside, I'm aware of two major exceptions in employment law that transcend the above: Religious preference and age. The courts have held that "religious preferences" must be accomodated to a reasonable extent, but "religious preference" is not absolute. The other exception is age, which is accomodated within the guidelines of respect for public safety (which is why we have no 80 year old commercial airline pilots).