🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6gdo4d$jq6$1@usenet88.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(HiThere) wrote:

> In article <gall-0704980053300001@usrts1m7.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
> (Norman Gall) wrote:

> >You are confusing logical relevance which contains a consideration for the
> >context and purpose of the argument (which is independent of persons) and
> >personal relevance (otherwise known as personal stake or interest) which
> >is as you say it is.

> Relevance in the issue of discrimination relating to employment is not 
> independant of persons, even logically. You made a reference in an earlier 
> post to the difference between liking ice cream and discriminating on the 
> basis of, say, sexual preference--stating the former was purely personal and 
> the latter not. I disagree.

Well, hold on.  I still think you are confusing a number of things. The
latter is not purely personal *in certain contexts* (and still independent
of how the people feel) - those contexts being political.  The right to be
treated fairly is clearly independent of how persons feel - that is why we
have a court system.

If we are talking about whether I should be your friend, I'd probably say
that if I dismissed you solely on the grounds that you sometimes sleep
with men, I'd be an asshole and leave it at that. The idea that one would
so dismiss and entire person on those grounds is morall reprehensible, but
hardly a matter for public policy. However, employment is not *just* a
private matter and never has been.  We have labour laws to ensure that
person with power do not take advantage of those who do not *when there is
no other recourse for the person with little power*.  We aren't talking
about single and individual contracts here. We are talking about broad
social attitudes and effects.  If it were just one guy in Calgary that ran
a bookstore that wasn't hiring gays, this wouldn't be an issue. It would
still be wrong, but the harm done to all would approach zero. When we have
large segments of the population doing it, we have a public problem.

> Say I put an ad in the paper looking for a mate, or a person to fill a job 
> position. In both cases, I am stating that I am open to a relationship and 
> looking for one--but it would be premature to say that I *have* one.

Again, these are not analogous situations. Employment is not a private contract.

> Someone answers either ad. They are also stating that they are open to a 
> relationship, and that they may wish one--but it would be premature to say 
> that there _is_ a relationship. Indeed, the issue betweent the parties is 
> *whether or not there will _be_ a relationship*.

No, the issue is whether there will be a further relationship. Insofar as
you are human beings and citizens of the same country you have certain
responsibilities and rights. We are not amoral data points before we enter
into contracts. I'd argue that such creature would be unable to enter
contracts.

> A person who wants me to hire them (or to be my romantic partner) does not 
> _have_ a relationship with me. They *wish* a relationship, perhaps--but that 
> is all. If I say *no* for whatever reason, there _was_ no relationship--it 
> never got that far. It failed in the negotiation stage, the same as if they 
> say *no* in the negotiation stage.

My argument applies here as well.

> Any decision I (or the potential lover/employee) make _before- the 
> relationship is entered into is _personal_. I am sure you wouldn't suggest 
> that I have to accept all or any given comers--regardless of suitability (on 
> my terms)--in a romantic relationship--why would you state that I must
need to 
> dismiss criteria I think important in the employment relationship? 

But you can be wrong in your selection of criteria.  This is the
distinction between taste and logical relevance.  It is logically relevant
to any argument about rights that we talk about moral agents. If you feel
that you can enter into a contract with an infant, you are simply wrong
(and not just from a legal standpoint).

> Note that I 
> said *must need* and not *should*. I think it is wrong to be a bigot--but I 
> support no legal sanction for such errors..

well, it depends on where and if that bigotry manifests itself in decsions
which are public concerns.  There is (what I consider) an unassailable
argument that sexual relations between consenting adults is a private
concern.  I maintain - and especially now - that there is ample evidence
that employment is a public concern.

> In the romantic or employment arena, any potential lover or employee has the 
> right not to enter into the relationship for _any_ reason they see fit--no 
> matter how it affects my interests, and properly so--and the reasons on
either 
> side may fall short of satisfying a personal moral view. Why is it different 
> on the employer issue, on the employer side?  As I said, my objection is
broad 
> enough that I think the Charter addresses this poorly.

I do not concur. As I said, employment is a public concern and the right
to be given a fair and reasonable shake is one that we should use the
coercive power of the law to maintain. There are public responsibilities
to being an employer and giving the potential employee this fair shake is
one to which the employer can be and should be held.
 
> As to dispensing with *all laws*...I don't argue for that, but I do
argue that 
> laws should properly only be sanctions against the initiation of 
> aggression/the instigation of force. 

Once again, I disagree that not hiring someone on the irrelevant ground
that they are not heterosexual *is not* economic coercion. Seeing that
employers have the responsibility to do much harm if they do so in a
widespread fashion (which has happened in the past and continues today),
i.e. such persons find it unreasonably difficult to find a job, it becomes
a public matter.

As well, it is not in keeping with the idea of a free society that persons
need to hide or suffer their irrelevant situations just on the grounds
that someone doesn't like them. Physicans cannot turn patients away *just*
because they dislike them.  The responsibility they have is public.
Similarly for employers.

Now, I would like to point out that there *might* be relevant grounds for
not hiring someone just because they are not heterosexual: E.g., sex
counsellors who will deal exclusively with het couples should probably be
het and have had some experience in the matter.

But on a related topic, why should I not be allowed to apply force to
someone just on the grounds that I dislike them? Isn't this a private
matter as well?

> Laws that do not fit this criteria I 
> thing are best handled in other arenas. By the way--I don't know if you are 
> familiar with it, but I highly recommend Bruno Leoni's book *Freedom & the 
> Law*, Nash, Los Angeles, 1961/1972 on the issues regarding this area. Leoni 
> was the Professor of Legal Theory and the Theory of the State at the 
> University of  Pavia, where he was also Chair of the faculty of Poli/Sci. 
> He lectured at Oxford, Manchester, Yale and U Virginia. How about you maybe 
> suggest a similarly relevant reading for me?

Sure. A few off the top of my head include

   Green, Leslie. (1988) The authority of the State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Les was educated at Queen's in Kingston and at Oxford under Raz. He is
Professor of Philosophy at York University and Professor of Law at Osgoode
Hall Law School. He's held positions of Dept Chair and Chair of the Grad
programmes in both depts. As well, he's been faculty at UCLA and Oxford in
the past.

These two guys obviously need no introduction:

   Raz, Joseph. (1990). Authority. New York: New York University Press.

   Raz, Joseph. (1979). The authority of law : essays on law and morality. 
      Oxford : Clarendon Press.

   Raz, Joseph. (1970). The concept of a legal system; an introduction to the 
      theory of legal system. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

   Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.


>  Also, please excuse my tone in  earlier posts--you clearly did not deserve 
> it.

Don't worry about it. We all get a little cranky and if people think
professional thinkers in the Academy don't use ad hominems right to their
interlocutors faces from time to time, they've got an overly romantic
view.

For what its worth, I think you;'ve got the only position mention on this
topic with any plausibility, consistency, or worth.  These other view are
non-starters.

Cheers,
Norm Gall

-- 
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge 
 without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.    Samuel Johnson