Posted by Kromey at 2:35pm Jul 10 '13Putting aside the question of whether or not there should be laws against discrimination in the workplace (I think there are some far-libertarian viewpoints here that would argue against these in the first place; for my own part I'm still on the fence but leaning in favor of having them), do these laws really have to define what types of discrimination they ban?
Why can't we just have a law that says, "No discrimination, period, except against acts, behaviors, etc. that have a tangible impact on one's ability to perform the duties of their job (e.g. someone could be fired for being high or drunk on the job)"?
What we instead end up with is a patchwork of laws defining what types of discrimination aren't allowed. We've got one that says no discrimination based on gender; another based on race; still another based on creed; now we may get one based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Isn't this a waste of time, when we could have just started with one that says, "No discrimination, period"? What happens if my prediction is correct and the next civil rights movement is for the polyamorous? Will we pass yet another anti-discrimination law the prohibits workplace discrimination based on number of spouses?
Why can't we just nip that -- and all the rest yet to come -- in the bud right away and just say "No discrimination, period"? Sure, if we worded it poorly we might have to later pass one that says "You can discriminate based on X, Y, and Z, if they impact a person's ability to fulfill the duties of their job", but wouldn't that be better anyway? Pretty sure we'd have fewer such "whitelist" discrimination laws than we do "blacklist" ones, saving us time and taxpayer money -- not to mention the incredible boon to civil rights in general.
Discuss.
ENDA advances in Senate; does it do enough? - Kromey