Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

[TeePee]

A gyneacologist who doesn't want to treat women won't have any patients, ergo won't have a job, and won't be a gyneacologist. That's a dumb example. That's like a pilot taking all his qualifications just to turn round and say he doesn't want to fly. He is not therefore a pilot.

A general nurse whose shift manager asks her to assist with abortions because they are short staffed and won't rearrange rosters to allow for her conscientious objection is discriminating against her. She should be able to work in another role, but the choice is not always respected. In theory she should therefore be able to complain - but it doesn't quite work like that in practice. That's anecdotal evidence, I can't reference it on the web. (it's not in the press SFAIK)

This is slightly detracting from the thread however. Feel free to start a new one. But coming back on track - it's time to start calling it Daesh folks: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hear-presi...1.html#ITJ9gZT

So how is it different? Someone refuses to do a job because of their religion, and then claims discrimination because they are refused. Again, you're calling it dumb, but not explaining the difference. The nurse in your example, if that were to happen, can work in another role and can make that choice. Again, there is no slavery in the UK, people always have a choice.

[ik9000]

So how is it different? Someone refuses to do a job because of their religion, and then claims discrimination because they are refused. Again, you're calling it dumb, but not explaining the difference. The nurse in your example, if that were to happen, can work in another role and can make that choice. Again, there is no slavery in the UK, people always have a choice.

No that nurse was bullied out of her job in the NHS, was smeared with bad references hindering getting other posts, and when the misery got too much returned to Oz to escape it. The theory is very different from the practise.

It is very different from someone training in a highly specialised role with a clear and obvious implication that working on women would be required - it is the only requirement of the job - and then saying they don't want to do it. Your example is a joke. Start a new thread if you want to debate this any further.

[TeePee]

No that nurse was bullied out of her job in the NHS, was smeared with bad references hindering getting other posts, and when the misery got too much returned to Oz to escape it. The theory is very different from the practise.

It is very different from someone training in a highly specialised role with a clear and obvious implication that working on women would be required - it is the only requirement of the job - and then saying they don't want to do it. Your example is a joke. Start a new thread if you want to debate this any further.

Fired for refusing to do part of her job sounds more believable. She should not have taken a job with part of the required duties being something she is morally opposed to. So you think that there should be a legal difference between someone who doesn't want to do one of the requirements of their job, and someone who doesn't want to do the only requirement of their job? How many of the things your job requires you to do should you be legally allowed to avoid? If your job has ten requirements, and you are willing to do only one of them, should you be protected from repercussions?

[ik9000]

Fired for refusing to do part of her job sounds more believable. She should not have taken a job with part of the required duties being something she is morally opposed to. So you think that there should be a legal difference between someone who doesn't want to do one of the requirements of their job, and someone who doesn't want to do the only requirement of their job? How many of the things your job requires you to do should you be legally allowed to avoid? If your job has ten requirements, and you are willing to do only one of them, should you be protected from repercussions?

that doesn't look like starting a new thread to me.

[TeePee]

that doesn't look like starting a new thread to me.

It looks like your argument failing the most basic logical test. That was a lot faster than wasting a whole other thread.

[peterb]

I have broken out the sub thread from the Attacks in Paris thread. It was clear that it was generating its own content that while interesting, had little to do with the original topic. I have chosen a thread title that I hope reflects the content.

[abaxas]

I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.

[kalniel]

I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.

You're not allowed to discriminate on age in most cases. There are some health etc. exceptions, just as there are some exceptions for sex where it makes sense.

[Galant]

As far as I can see, anti-discrimination laws came about and continue to exist, in order to protect and promote a notion of equal worth among all human beings, in response to various abuses based on notions that one 'demographic' was or could be worth less than some other demographic (black are worth less/less human than whites, or women than men or homosexuals than heterosexuals). All of that, to me, seems well and good. The equality in being of all humans is a vital truth to be upheld and defended courageously.

I think a lot of the problems with whether these laws have been going stems from the conflation of a person's being with their actions so that, whereas the laws rightly protect against discrimination on the basis of a person's inherent worth or being and deny or elevate worth unjustly and incorrectly, it's becoming the case that discrimination is not permitted even on the basis behaviour. That is, while one may be able to recognise and respect the full value and inherent worth of a given individual, and even treat them with due respect and civility, one may not be permitted to hold meaningful disagreement with views that person holds, or practises in which that person engages, if they are in some way tied to a protect aspect of their being.

[kalniel]

That is, while one may be able to recognise and respect the full value and inherent worth of a given individual, and even treat them with due respect and civility, one may not be permitted to hold meaningful disagreement with views that person holds, or practises in which that person engages, if they are in some way tied to a protect aspect of their being.

I don't think that's the case though. Disagreement with views and practises is fully allowed in law, because they are by their nature not inherently discriminatory. Actions or statements that encourage/lead to actions against inherent aspects are.

Example:
Saying I disagree with the Christian practise of baptism is not discriminatory.
Saying I will treat Christians differently to non-Christians *is* discriminatory.

Interesting one about gender and sexual preference though: Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women?

[Ttaskmaster]

A can say things about B because B doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws protecting them.

Other way around - B can say what they like about A, because B has no such laws and is therefore not subject to them. Just because A has some law in their country, it doesn't mean the same law applies to B in theirs.

Just because *some* acts are discriminatory, doesn't mean all are.

ALL acts are discriminatory, but some are more discriminatory than others!

That's the same silliness that happens here. That doesn't mean religious belief is 'lesser', reverse the scenario and the result would be the same.

I would like to see such cases tried, actually....
You cannot choose your race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc.
You can choose your religion, though. In order to follow a religion, you must actively make yourself a part of it, so IMO that does put your choice below what someone else has no choice in... more so if you choose something that actively discriminates against those others.
Extreme example, but if that were not so I could join something like the KKK and claim it as my religious right to lynch certain folk...

A general nurse whose shift manager asks her to assist with abortions because they are short staffed and won't rearrange rosters to allow for her conscientious objection is discriminating against her. She should be able to work in another role, but the choice is not always respected.

This happens a lot more than you think in the NHS.

The nurse in your example, if that were to happen, can work in another role and can make that choice. Again, there is no slavery in the UK, people always have a choice.

No, she cannot and that is what the issue is - She should and on paper she can... but in reality the whole institution would (and do) drum people like her out, either directly or by making the working environment so intolerable they voluntarily quit.
It's what we do here in engineering, too and why all the actual engineers have left.

I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.

Would you be more upset to have a platoon of women deployed in combat, or a platoon of toddlers?
Generally, you're not allowed to discriminate on age, but there are a lot of situations where time lived and thus likely experience gained, or time left and likelihood of paying off the mortgage before you die are the inescapable (and often only) driving factors.

Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women?

Yes, you are. You should date enough men to be in proportional keeping with the percentage of attraction you do feel toward men.
If you don't find men attractive at all, however, it could be argued that you're fine...

Nah, generally discrimination is only an issue if you're treating someone negatively precisely because of the one factor (race, age, gender, etc) and especially if it's not something they can choose in the first place. However, it also applies if you're treating someone positively because of the same factors, often at the expense of everyone else.
Doesn't work if you treat everyone badly either, though, as you're then just a nasty nasty git!

[BobF64]

ALL acts are discriminatory, but some are more discriminatory than others!

Well, in a legal sense.

All acts are a choice, which happens to be discriminatory via its very nature.

[peterb]

Anti-discrimination laws often have unintended consequences. One example was the EU ruling that insurance companies were not allowed to take gender into account when assessing risk for car insurance, so they could not offer lower premiums to young female driver, even though statistically they have fewer claims and represent a lower risk. As a consequence, the insurance premiums for young female drives rose massively, which seems blatantly unfair. Although I expect the EU naively thought that male premiums would reduce!

[Galant]

I don't think that's the case though. Disagreement with views and practises is fully allowed in law, because they are by their nature not inherently discriminatory. Actions or statements that encourage/lead to actions against inherent aspects are.

Example:
Saying I disagree with the Christian practise of baptism is not discriminatory.
Saying I will treat Christians differently to non-Christians *is* discriminatory.

Interesting one about gender and sexual preference though: Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women?

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Saying I don't value as equal Arab individuals is wrongful discrimination.
Saying I don't value as equal the polygamous marriage of a given Arab is not wrongful discrimination. In that reasonable people can hold meaningful and important on different types of marriage but not meaningful and important views on different races or sexual orientation.
The same could be applied to gay marriage.

It's one thing for a society to require us to, rightly, recognise the equality of all individuals and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion and value on that matter. It's something else to require people to recognise the equality of any given behavior or relationship and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion or value on the matter.

The protection afforded is to the person of the individual, not any given expression that individual chooses to make. It's an important distinction if we wish to maintain as free a society as possible.

[kalniel]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Saying I don't value as equal Arab individuals is wrongful discrimination.
Saying I don't value as equal the polygamous marriage of a given Arab is not wrongful discrimination. In that reasonable people can hold meaningful and important on different types of marriage but not meaningful and important views on different races or sexual orientation.
The same could be applied to gay marriage.

It's one thing for a society to require us to, rightly, recognise the equality of all individuals and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion and value on that matter. It's something else to require people to recognise the equality of any given behavior or relationship and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion or value on the matter.

The protection afforded is to the person of the individual, not any given expression that individual chooses to make. It's an important distinction if we wish to maintain as free a society as possible.

Right, but isn't that the case already? It is the individual that is protected, not a given behaviour.