Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submitlogin

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail.

So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer".

We're not talking about being mean to people because of their skin color, or not selling them ice cream because they're working for the Mafia. We're talking not selling them weapons, and not letting them buy you drinks and whatnot, because they're working for the Mafia. That's exactly appropriate.

What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really.

You're making a mockery out of the word "discrimination" here. You're equating withdrawing support from those who do harm with being mean to handicapped people and whatnot: Fuck that, utterly and completely.




>What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really.

Can you leave free speech out of this.

Returning to the main point, the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it. Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.

-----


All you are basically saying is that it is not ok to discriminate based on employer if the person has no idea what their employer is doing.

Presumably this is not the case if it is known what an employer is doing, although when it is not known what an employer is doing, discrimination based on employer would seem uncommon.

-----


Can you leave free speech out of this.

Maybe, if you could kindly explain what you mean by that, because I don't get it.

the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it

There are over a hundred hours of Adolf Eichmann trials on Youtube. Watch any one of them, provided it contains him defending himself. So if the bigger problem is a complete non-issue, what does that say about the smaller ones?

Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.

What is legal or not might be an issue for the organizers, granted, but personally I care more about what is right and what isn't. So if they break the laws for this, more power to them; if they can find a loophole, also fine. Private clubs can invite whoever they fuck they want, for example; this wouldn't be very practical, but there's nearly always a way.

-----


I think you might be reading into my words a bit too far. The Mafia is not a legal employer. Requiring someone to have a legal employer in order to buy a legal weapon makes sense. (Perhaps. Maybe it makes sense for them not to have an illegal employer.) At any rate the Mafia do not generally buy legal weapons. As for not letting somebody buy me a drink, that's not exactly organizational discrimination - it's more like personal discrimination - but not letting a certain class of individuals enter a bar based on their legal employment is. Personal discrimination is a lot murkier, and everyone does it to some degree.

I know that I didn't make the distinction between legal and illegal until later on, so maybe you didn't see it.

-----


Doubt any lawyer or court would agree with that "Employers made up of the people that work for them" - except possibly in the case of a coop.

In the US and the UK employment law descends from the masters and servants act - Note the term.

-----




Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: