Do you vote for a president with Jewish values or money?

Fox

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 6:04 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You are making assumptions about Dr. Mohamed's religious views and interpretation of Koran based solely on his last name.

Um, no. I just gave the example that he might be a devout Christian. We can't tell anything about his religious views based on his name.

Jeanette wrote:

Sites like stormfront et al will selectively quote for you every reference in the Talmud that is unflattering to gentiles. Should you have to give a line-item veto of every one of those statements in order to qualify for a job?

I expect that someone who works for a private or public company that has a non-discrimination policy to abide fully and whole-heartedly by that policy as well as support the mission of the organization. And if he/she cannot do so for religious reasons, I'd prefer that be a reason not to hire the person in the first place.

This, to my knowledge, is the basis of current employment law. Your last name does not necessarily mean you cannot or will not follow your organization's codes. Your religion of birth or ethnic background does not mean you cannot or will not follow your organization's codes. But if you cannot in good conscience reconcile your active religious beliefs with the legitimate demands of the job, then it is reasonable that you not be hired.

southernbubby

Sun, Nov 26 2017, 7:25 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I don't call it prejudice if you've already experienced bad care from a doctor. I do call it prejudice if you refuse to see someone or assume they will give bad care just based on their name.

So why don't I just call a spade a spade and say that I am not going to davka look for a Muslim doctor if a Jewish doctor is available because I do feel more comfortable with the Jewish doctor or the female doctor or someone that I relate to or feel comfortable with. I didn't refuse to have Dr. Mohammud put me under anesthesia, but when I heard his name, my first instinct was fear and it was only after telling myself that he wouldn't have worked for a hospital with mostly non-Muslims, if he wanted to kill all of them.

And if a doctor assumes that your health issues, chas v'sholem, are because you are a hysterical Jewish mother, or your aches and pains are due to your weight, or your elderly grandmother has a sickness called 'old age', is that doctor exhibiting prejudice?

marina

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 12:04 am

Fox wrote:

Of course it's a slippery slope. Virtually all laws can be used as the thin edge of an undesirable wedge.

However, there's a paradox at work here: the reason that this issue exists in the first place is because we live in an exceptionally large, exceptionally multi-cultural, exceptionally multi-religious, relatively tolerant country. In other words, people refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings is not an issue in Chechnya.

And because we live in such a large and diverse country, it will be in someone's self-interest to provide medical/legal/financial services to non-Christians and bake cakes for gay weddings.

None of the denial-of-services situations with which I'm familiar involved a scarcity of other options, and in at least one case, there was never actually a potential client in the first place.

A private or public employer may certainly set conditions of employment that involve non-discrimination, and a potential employee may negotiate those to the best of his/her ability. This is precisely what Jews do regarding Sabbath observance. Just as an employer may say, "Unfortunately, I can't hire you because one of the key responsibilities of this job is opening the store on Saturday," a law firm might say, "While we respect that you'd prefer not to work with Jews as clients because of your religious beliefs, a large percentage of our clients are Jews, and this job requires a willingness to work on cases without regard to the individual client's characteristics."

Is it possible that some people will use "religious freedom" as a way of avoiding people they don't like for whatever reason? Of course! But there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a significant problem or that undermining the invisible hand of the market is justified for the common good.

This is the quientessential libertarian position that you are articulating here- leave the free market alone and it will do its job. The government has no place in directing business practice and conduct.

History, though, does not look favorably upon this view. There were many times in history, agree with me, that the free market did not actually prevent discrimination against Jews, for example. Right? For example, the entire time period when firing a person for not working on shabbos was easy and legal.

And it’s entirely possible, don’t you think, that in some areas the free market will actually foment religious bigotry? Like, oh, your bakery serves Jews? Well we will take our business elsewhere then.

As for your “no evidence that this is a problem” note, there’s no problem bc we have these anti discrimination laws for 50+ years. Similar to an anti vaxxer explaining that there’s no need for polio vaccine bc no evidence that polio is a problem today.

Miri7

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 12:10 am

Fox wrote:

How many times does Socialism have to fail before you abandon it?

The incredible persecution and deprivation in the Soviet Union wasn't enough for you?

Famine in pre-capitalist China didn't move you?

People crossing 90 miles of shark-infested ocean in inflatable rafts to escape from Cuba didn't make an impression?

Schoolgirls in Venezuela engaging in prostitution in exchange for food?

Having the super-wealthy chip in a few extra bucks to make life easier for those on the bottom sounds like compassion, but it is not. No matter where it has been tried, it consistently results in brutality and degradation. As the late Margaret Thatcher noted, eventually you run out of other people's money.

It is true that we can do much, much better to equalize opportunity in America, but we cannot and should not attempt to equalize outcomes.

I’m not arguing for socialism. We already have a regulated market economy with tax and benefits programs that do redistribute wealth to some extent - Medicaid, food stamps, CHIP.

The discussion is about whom to tax and how much, and how much to give and to whom. This is run of the mill debate in our current democracy. Some people think supply side economics works. Me, not so much. There’s a lot of distance between “equalizing outcomes” and providing some basics for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

While I often disagree with your political views, I do enjoy your posts and I expect more from you then to dismiss my ideas with socialism fear-mongering.

(I’m hoping that this comes across as respectful because that’s how it’s intended Smile

southernbubby

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 9:50 am

marina wrote:

But we can't deny the following:

1) It can be difficult to prove discrimination unless someone actually says, we don't serve your type or hire your type or rent to your type.

2) There are back door ways to discriminate such as working from home, advertising by word of mouth or not in the mainstream English media, or by labeling the business something that would put off those who the business does not want to serve such as calling it Xtian photography, or hanging up signs in other languages so that the public does not know what type of business it is or if they can communicate with the owner.

3)Simply being cold and unfriendly to those that the business does not wish to serve.

4)Affiliating with a religious group such as a caterer who says that "we are affiliated with the Orthodox Union and all weddings that we cater must be approved with the Orthodox Union."

5)The business owner does what Dan Cathy of Chic fil A did and let the world know that some of the proceeds of the business go to organizations that are pro-Xtian marriage such as the American Family Association.

6)The business has active religion being practiced on the premises such as Hobby Lobby that has Xtian bible study sessions in the stores. Other business might decorate with religious symbols that tell the public what religious beliefs the owners practice. This might be off putting to those who are alienated by those beliefs. Think about what message it gives when the signs on stores in Monsey request that shoppers dress modestly and elaborate on what dressing modestly means.

7) In rental situations, if the owner or his children reside on the property, they are allowed to discriminate. For example, an elderly woman looking for a roommate does not have to take a 21 year old male of another racial background, who likes to party but even if she is completely living in another unit on the property, she doesn't have to rent to him.

8)Even in situations where the business owner would be guilty of discrimination for refusing to do business, he is apparently allowed to disclose what his personal or religious views are about the customer and let the customer decide if he still wants to do business. He can say, "I can't turn you down but I am opposed to same gender marriage."

southernbubby

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 10:01 am

Miri7 wrote:

I do agree that there is a reality that, while my ancestors had to leave the shtetel, and try to succeed here, and that was difficult, my ancestors were never slaves as the African Americans had been for approx 254 years and we can't pretend that 10 or 12 generations of slavery didn't have a lasting effect on their descendants or that their opportunities have ever been equal. The same could be said for those who have lived in rural hollows for many generations and have not had equal access to quality education. American taxpayers may not get out from under those realities for several more generations, or unless taxpayer money is spent to equalize those outcomes.

The problem is that the left likes to refer to income inequality as something that needs to change and it is the greedy rich that needs to pay the price for their greed by having their wealth re-channeled into programs for the poor because it is their fault that the poor is poor. Personally if working a bit harder but losing a far greater amount in taxes was likely to occur, I wouldn't try as hard to make the money. The left would like to imagine that most of society would prefer to work to pay taxes to support the poor and if they feel that way, sell those houses in wealthy neighborhoods and move to the inner city and be part of the solution. Many of us see that they themselves would shelter their own wealth and expect someone else to pay to provide the poor with a better life. IOW, why were there so many Bernie signs in wealthy neighborhoods?

Mommyg8

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 11:43 am

marina wrote:

History cannot say anything about the free market one way or another, because there never was such a thing.

You mention the discrimination against Jews; but my grandfather would get ticketed every Sunday for keeping his business open. How is that part of the free market? He was discriminated against by the government. Even worse, in certain parts of Europe, Jews were not legally allowed to work in certain positions or own certain businesses. This was not the free market at play; if that were the case, it would be probable that individual Jews would have done well even with the enormous prejudice in those areas. This was government legislation.

I am not a fan of legislating against discrimination, and/or laws that their goal is social engineering. I don't think it's smart, and I don't think it works. It can easily backfire as well. And as you pointed out, I am pro the free market in the economic area, where people are allowed to hire and fire as they wish.

Let's be honest, the reason why all our clothing, electronics, and every other household item is now manufactured overseas is mostly because of all these employment laws that you are advocating. So, instead of people working 14 hours days in sweatshops in America, they are now working 14 hour days in sweatshops in China. But that's ok, as long as it's not in my backyard, right?

I think that the intentions of the people who are crafting employment and anti-discrimination laws are good, but all laws do have unintended consequences, and those who will not face those consequences - as they arise - are really living in their own version of reality.

Fox

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 12:05 pm

marina wrote:

You're trying to force me to take a position as a free market absolutist, and I'm not going to do that. You're also conflating employment law, non-discrimination in public access, and denial of services. You know you'd never let me get away with that! Smile

I have no problem with employment law, though I'm certainly not knowledgeable about its quirks at the federal, state, or local levels. I'm sure there is room for improvement. AFAIK, it requires "reasonable" accommodations and exempts faith-based organizations.

While you are correct that the free market can indulge bigotry, it can also serve as a powerful force for social change. Examples of this would be the Great Migration and the rise of Jewish M&A lawyers in the 80s. However, there's a reason Adam Smith referred to "the invisible hand of the marketplace." It's both quiet and invisible. We don't notice it until it's already happened; we may think things are stagnating, but they really aren't.

As for denial of artistic/professional services based on religious grounds, it's never a good idea to advocate for laws that could be applied against you in the future. I don't want to force Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes precisely because I don't want to force frum photographers to be forced to take pictures in churches.

Is it possible that people might misuse religious freedom to discriminate on spurious grounds. Absolutely! As I said in my initial post on the topic, it's entirely possible that cases would arise that would make me re-think this position. However, it doesn't seem to be a problem, and I'm against regulation when none is legitimately needed. Legislating rules to prevent theoretical bad behavior just in case anyone ever tries it does not generally make for good law.

southernbubby

Mon, Nov 27 2017, 12:45 pm

[quote="imasoftov"]It's somewhat harder, but doable. Let's say that a landlord is suspected of not renting to people with brown eyes. Send in a number of renters of varying eye color, each with a recording device, all asking for the same size rental. If all the brown-eyed people are told there are no vacancies and all the blue-eyed people are given an application to fill out ...[/quote

Some people do get caught that way and others get away with it. Someone who is frum or Muslim can post vacancies in a language other than English and only for their own groups rather than advertising those vacancies for the general public. It may also be that when the property is shown, it is spruced up for the desireables and left dirty for the undesireables. For example, the family that is currently renting may only be told to tidy up when the "right" kind is coming to view the apartment.