Z, this is absurd. Would you care to answer the question?
That is not private according to the justification of the civil rights act title 2 justification. It is interstate commerce. It is plausible though to argue that the interstate commerce powers of the federal government should not apply to all private business matters, such as a contract between two people residing in the same state. In fact, the reasoning behind the restriction on “private” discrimination is that basically ALL commerce is interstate commerce which is not reasonable since the constitution used the modifier “interstate” to describe some commerce. It stands to reason that at least some commerce is intra-state commerce and is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
It could also be argued that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce does not outweigh some personal freedoms or limitations. For example, the right to regulate interstate commerce prior to the 16th amendment would not have given the federal government the right to tax income, even though income payments are as much “interstate commerce” as hiring, working or contracting.
I currently work for one of the world’s largest staffing companies. Kinda like manpower but bigger we’re not shitheads ;P. They’re ‘stereotyped’ for both very strong customer service skills and work ethic. Very low turnover from that combo, so they’re like candy for recruiters. Vets normally win out on most of that for the incentives.
We’re a company that a good bit of very large companies with very high bodycount turnovers, typically either low skill high turnover stuff, or contract work. But we provide the service while technically being contractors of our clients and can represent their internal HR (so they don’t know we exist) for their high turnover (expensive to run) segments of business
1 Like
It’s kind of become a tautology. It the government can regulate it, its not private.
Would you like to answer the question?
Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.
That’s very cool! That made my day to hear that about my culture.
1 Like
My sincere condolences.
1 Like
So there’s not really a lot of ‘research’ on worker quality by religion, for obvious reasons, but in the HR world with the size of some of us, we’re able to set addt internal scores/weighting based on the schools that the candidate attended.
We don’t look any lower than HS, as it’s rarely on a resume to even check, but Utah colleges typically rank up there with ivy leagues. There’s obviously a myriad of other factors, but it certainly doesn’t hurt
1 Like
Two general questions. 1) Did the supreme court’s ruling on same sex marriage allow same sex marriage between two heterosexual men or women? It seems to me that it would not technically be discriminatory to prohibit two heterosexual males or females from getting married because there is no homosexual status to discriminate against. I felt that the case should have been argued on the grounds of “sex” discrimination, that the state can not discriminate in issuing a marriage license based on the sexes of the people applying for the license.
Second, if a custom cake baker was a private contractor, and he was a Christian with religious views about homosexual behavior that was known about, would a gay couple, looking for a custom cake be subject to anti-discrimination lawsuit if they did not chose to give the baker an equal opportunity to contract to make the cake? I have read a few recent cases where families were sued for not offering a contract to a nanny or housekeeper of a different race even though they had applied for the position.
If marriage is a contract, then is it illegal discrimination for someone to prefer to marry people of a given race, sex, religion?
Yeah, it’s a private business and arrangement, it’s just that because of the nexus to commerce it can be regulated. That characteristic - commercial - doesn’t make it a public thing.
And in some cases, it doesn’t - however, virtually all states have a anti-discrimination analog in state law.
In 2018, virtually all commerce is interstate. It’s been that way for a while, but laws have included qualifiers for businesses of a certain size that are presumptively not all that engaged in large-scale interstate commerce.
The Constitution doesn’t say that. You say “it could be argued” alot without really having much of a basis for that being the case.
That’s because the taxing power is a very specific power expressly delegated in a different part of the Constitution, and “taxing” isn’t “regulating”. Taxing and regulating are treated separately. And no one has ever claimed the right to tax under the IC Clause. Bad example.
I’m asking how is mentioning your same sex partner a behavior that would be labelled practicing homosexuality? Openly practicing suggests engaging in homosexual acts of some sort.
Gays don’t want the same relationships as heterosexuals.
It’s not technically a business transaction and it’s not a form of employment.
They don’t want love, company, someone to raise a family with?
Can I interpret this as meaning you would support the government blocking a Catholic high school from firing the teacher in the scenario I described? Your line of questioning leads one to believe it would outright take homosexual sex in the classroom before a Catholic High school should be allowed to act.
I will only say that I don’t believe that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce. Maybe i’m wrong. With the health care act penalty ruling, it appears that the ability to tax is effectively unlimited.
Of course I would from the perspective of an American citizen. Catholics should have learned something from all of the people they killed in the name of the Church so from a religious perspective I wouldn’t agree with it either. They should have learned something from the deviant behavior they allowed to persist for centuries. The Church does not have clean hands.
You wouldn’t allow a Catholic school to hire and fire based upon the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Gays who suddenly come out to their co-workers, and even to their students, in a Catholic High School would have their jobs secured by the government. Ok, thank you for answering.
If someone doesn’t believe in discriminating gays, why would they think a gay person should be able to be targeted for things others cannot?