Originally posted by lord xyzThe problem is that the police are the enforcing agency of the government, so if they have their own racist views, it could affect their work, in a negative way. On the other hand, just not letting them join doesn't change their own believes. It's a complicated issue, really.
Yes. Just like we're able to think they're retarded and join an organisation against racist organisations.Truly bad things have their own consequences. If you truly believe this to be bad, it'll go away on it's own. No law is needed.
Originally posted by Bardock42Unless it's illegal to be a racist policeman, they should be allowed to do it.
The problem is that the police are the enforcing agency of the government, so if they have their own racist views, it could affect their work, in a negative way. On the other hand, just not letting them join doesn't change their own believes. It's a complicated issue, really.
Originally posted by Nactous
Please continue 馃槈
I've faced so much racism from cops, I don't think it matters whether they're card-carrying members of the American Knights of the KKK, or just racist on their own.
In 2006, the social research lab of NAU worked with the ACLU's lawsuit against Arizona-DPS and proved that they're two-an-a-half times more likely to pullover non-white motorists.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though?
Not only that, "Are you racist?" is not typically a job interview question.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI asked why it shouldn't be the employer's decision, and you replied to me (twice), so, I figure, we were obviously talking about the employer's decision, unless you for some reason decided to reply to what I was saying but slyly thought to yourself "HA, I shan't tell him that I am referring to something totally unrelated"...was that, by chance, the case?
No one has said it shouldn't be the employer's decision so far. The issue of the law, on the other hand, has come up.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I asked why it shouldn't be the employer's decision, and you replied to me (twice), so, I figure, we were obviously talking about the employer's decision, unless you for some reason decided to reply to what I was saying but slyly thought to yourself "HA, I shan't tell him that I am referring to something totally unrelated"...was that, by chance, the case?
You were responding to XYZ's comment about what is legal and not. I assumed that was the topic you were addressing but now I'm just really confused.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You were responding to XYZ's comment about what is legal and not. I assumed that was the topic you were addressing but now I'm just really confused.
I was responding to him, with a question, why it shouldn't be the employer's right (in this case the government) to decide who to employ, why would it have to be illegal for them not to employ those people. You then replied to me, saying that "It already is" referring to, I can only assume, it already being the employer's right, to which I then replied that I didn't concern myself with whether or not it was the employer's right already, I was just asking why he thought it shouldn't be (or, if he even does think it shouldn't be, though I felt it was implied in his post). To this you then replied with, "Because if you let every employer invent laws then you get total chaos?", which, like I said, I find totally unrelated, to what we have been talking about as well as to what xyz said, I will quote our exchange here:
Originally posted by lord xyz
Unless it's illegal to be a racist policeman, they should be allowed to do it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why shouldn't that be the employers decision, though?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It already is.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I was asking why he thinks it shouldn't be.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because if you let every employer invent laws then you get total chaos?
Regardless, this seems to drag off a slight bit.
To summarize what I was trying to say and ask: Should the government have the right to decide who to employ (as, for example, not people that are in racist organizations) and, in extensions should any employer have the right not to employ someone for whatever reason they want, and should the government be held to different standards as private employers, and, if so, why and what standards?