We are, unless I missed something, discussing how things should be- not how they are.
Yup, you missed something. The rest of us are talking about how things
are as the result of a federal judge's decision in a specific case. It doesn't seem hard to read the titles on message threads.
I couldn't figure out what in the world
you have been talking about so I'm glad you've just explained that you are talking about the way things are and the implications of that but about "how things should be" according to
you. I don't know whose turn it is to set the rules for the rest of the world to follow but I'm sure that you're pretty far down on the list. It's not polite to cut ahead in the line of those waiting to become Ruler of the Universe.
Your explanation does help me understand why you seem to know so much, though, and why so much of that is distorted as if you were seeing the world reflected in a fun house mirror.
For example, your argument that
all employers
should be free to discriminate
solely on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, and gender if that's what they want to do describes what
you want this country to be like. A lot of the rest of us worked hard for a lot of years to fight against such discrimination and the people who advocate it. Your position, that employees who don't like it can and should go elsewhere, ignores the tragic consequences of such attitudes in the history of this country and others.
What you think works? It didn't and doesn't and won't and can't. The only kind of history that supports what you advocate as "how things should be" is the history
you distort to support your bizarre vision of an ideal social order. It's a society in which the strong exploit the weak because they
can do it and have some right to do it. You make the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant because
you are The Law. Although that might be "how things should be" in your view, it's not how things
are or how they
will be.
As soon as the people who have been agreeing with your twisted sophistry recognize where it leads and how it must affect them, at least some of them will see that you've distorted things to support your argument and get some insight into how you do it. You're not good at it.
In your distorted view of what I said about racial discrimination based on employers' views that some races commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, for example, you say: "And if that employee is actually good at what they do, those who make policies that scare away such employees will pay for it." But in fact those employers
did not "pay for it" from whatever time racial discrimination was introduced into the world. Employees and those who needed employment in order to survive paid for it.
Your assertions are based on some whacky notion that there is a level playing field between those who pay people and those who need that pay
for survival. That kind of level playing field does exist from time to time in some specific situations but it's uncommon and temporary, and usually it's a phenomenon in specialized occupations. The real marketplace--not the one in your head--is one in which a shortage of skilled employees in some occupation becomes known and quickly turns into a surplus. Employers publicize such situations.
What surprises and saddens me is that many people today forget their roots and the lessons of history. It would be astonishing if most of the people who read this thread are the sons and daughters of inherited wealth. Most, I suspect, are first or second generation members of the middle class, in it only because their parents, grandparents, and earlier ancestors worked and suffered to survive in the hope that their children might do better. And yet instead of remembering where they came from, how they got where they are now, and the cost that other people paid for their present status in life, they identify themselves otherwise. Social and economic status is fragile, and neither can be controlled by the person affected. We often give ourselves much more credit than we deserve for what we think are our own achievements.
Although Ayn Rand's notions of
laissez faire capitalism make for a few minutes of interesting conversation when there is nothing better to do with the time, a society conceived as nothing more than a pit in which only the fit can survive is never more than a pit. In a previous message I mentioned the high school sophomore, and it was for the reason that such notions are essentially sophomoric with little regard for either the lessons of history or the obligations of humanity.
Your attempts to compare a person's home with a business are just silly. Sensible people, even judges and lawmakers, know the difference. You can too if you try real hard.