Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohCh6zos | Hacker News Reader

We should have all of those, but right now we have those asymmetrically depending on your cause.

If I believe that people whose name is ohCh6zos should be made into bacon ought the law force you to employ me or do you think adults should be able to choose who they associate with?

I believe that the existence of protected classes means you do not enjoy the freedom of association you rightfully should, and that either extreme would be preferable to the middle ground where only some expression overrides freedom of association.

You have freedom to associate with whom you choose based on any reasonable criteria other than not hiring someone because of the color of their skin, where they come from, or whom they choose to love. The freedom of a tiny minority of employers cannot be extended further without abridging the freedom of the vast majority of folks. You have argued both for forcing people to associate with those whose views they find deplorable and for privileging the right of employers not to associate with protected classes. Which is it?

The only possible interpretation is that you are either vacillating between mutually incoherent positions arguing first one than the other with no attempt to reconcile them or you would like the government to privilege one group of people by allowing them to discriminate while forcing people to accept their "free expression" however odious it is.

Except you can hire based on the color of the applicants skin. You can openly favor black people over white and Asian applicants. Lots of companies do it. OP is simply stating he is against all favored status, hiring should be a meritocracy.

Here are two quotes from the same fellow

> I believe that the existence of protected classes means you do not enjoy the freedom of association you rightfully should

>> Employers (unless you work for the government) are not bound by the first amendment, and can fire you or penalize you for expression outside of the workplace.

> It seems like that is an oversight we should fix.

He believes that employers ought to be forbidden from using your out of work communications to make hiring and firing decisions but wants to scrap the prohibition on using your membership in a protected class to make that same decision.

You absolutely can't make a hiring decision on race. If Joe White and Joe Black apply for the same position you are required to evaluate all applicants and cannot turn down Mr White for his skin color any more than Mr Black. What you CAN do if I understand correctly is make targeted attemps to advertise to and invite people based on characteristics. You can for instance advertise in what is traditionally a woman targeted magazine in order to inspire more women to apply for instance.

What does "asymmetrically" mean other than freedom of speech not implying freedom from consequences?

He likely means you can be openly anti white without consequences but not anti black. Openly anti Christian but not anti Jewish.

I believe we would be better off as a society if we either decided it was ok, or not ok and not situational.

In a perfect world we'd just all decide to be better people and not racist without external pressure, but that seems like a pipe dream.

I agree with you

There are plenty of spaces where you can be openly anti-black and anti-semitic without consequence. That you can't do so in, say, a black church or a synagogue doesn't mean white Christians don't have the same rights as black people and Jews. Try to be anti-white or anti-Christian on any "free speech" platform or many places in the American deep south and you'll definitely face consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com