送交者: mangolasi 于 2006-2-03, 11:52:14:
回答: Old dog cannot learn new tricks. You just can't learn, can you? 由 steven 于 2006-2-02, 23:34:20:
evidence) is against the law in US. I was surprised when you said "Because the Fed and state government do not do business with companies don't have EO in place. ". My interpretation of that line is "fed/state gov can not punish companies with hiring discrimation" (as your example of Resistence record (that's the first time to hear it. Thanks for the example). I thought it's wired because there had been litigation on discriminative hirings/firings/harassment in the working place. But I did not have time to refute. Today I found this: (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html ) Sexual orientation is not protected by the federal gov but by some states.
So Enlighten was right though not in the literal sense. The manager was indeed fired for violation of company policy (she might be against the law but this is not the reason to be fired as the court can not tell the company whether it should fire a particular person. Rather, if serious enough she gets litigation --fired or have her job). But the reason the company fire her is to be declaring that's her personal behavior, nothing deal with the company--so to avoid litigation against the company.
I don't know how the record company can get away from it if someone is really consistently sending non-white applying for a position and collect the rejection rate of non-white, and then sue it. They don't get into a trouble perhaps simply because no-one was really serious to them.
But you don't really need to waste time on the guy. He/She is thinking "freedom" in an abstract term, which is only able to apply to "freedom of thought" (not even speech, supposed you are giving a public speech on how to make small nuclear bomb), because "thought crime" is the most horrible thing in the world (not to mention the lost of accumulation of human wisdom)--simply because it can be the easiest way to get rid of the people you don't like by charging them to think the "wrong" thing which is not possible to prove or disprove. The exception on freedom of speech is only limited to very special cases--those will bring nearly immediate material result like bomb-building skill sharing to potential terrorists, or spreading hatred to someone surrounded by already angry mass. To any speech (even hate speech) whose result is quite remote, there is no reason to limit it.
Freedom of action, as we are interacting, and every one's interaction has impact on others. One person's freedom of action will be harming the other's. How to draw a line is testing our intelligence. It's still possible that we can enjoy the maximum level of freedom while not harming others. To deny freedom of action as a concept a whole is to deny this possibiliyt, which in term deny we can have the wisdom to solve it. This is really dichotomic view. "No absolute freedom" means "no freedom", so we don't have to find a way to get "90% freedom" rather than the "10% freedom" (yup, Chinese can still get a bit freedom now). You are too stupid to find a way to improve (or imagine the improvement) doesn't mean everyone is samely stupid.