~ archived since 2018 ~

Belgium shop fined for discriminating against male job-seeker

bangsoul

August 24, 2018

82 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45294477

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Belgium shop fined for discriminating against male job-seeker
Author	bangsoul
Upvotes	82
Comments	17
Date	August 24, 2018 12:25 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/99wypg/belgium_shop_fined_for_discriminating_against/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/belgium-shop-fined-for-discriminating-against-male.895540 https://theredarchive.com/post/895540

Comments

[–]andejoh 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with this.

I understand that a lot of people here are socialists/communists, and that's fine, we will not always agree on everything and I wouldn't want it that way either. However, I believe that property rights and freedom of association are the correct way to handle this situation.

I also understand that this is an attempt to make an equivalent to women as a protected class with men becoming a protected class. Rather than make everyone a protected class, which is a severe overreach of the government by the way, I would rather not strip a business owner of his rights.

I.e. if a man wishes to hire only other men, that's his choice. If a man wishes to hire only women, that's fine too.

Remove the advantages and benefits that women have as a protected class, don't extend the government overreach to men. That is what I believe the correct path is.

[–]andejoh 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There are a couple things. The first is if women are a protected class, men should be a protected class as well. That's equality. The second is it's not an issue of freedom of association. It's an issue of licensing. The government doesn't tell you who you can hire. You're not required to hire anyone, however, if you choose (Yes, it's a choice), the government places restrictions on what you can and can't do.

They can require a minimum wage for instance. They can require a company to comply with OSHA laws. Neither employer nor employee has the right to waive these protections. Unless you do not believe in inalienable rights, I don't really see much of an argument against saying that there are basic rights that we can't relinquish. There was a comic book story where people were paid like a million dollars to be murdered and have it televised.

Freedom of association is an odd argument. Granted we can define how and under what conditions we associate, but a business open to the general public has a much weaker position making this case (ie unless men (in this case) are banned as customers, it's not a case that you don't want to associate with them. You want to restrict your association).

Even the Wing couldn't make that claim because they hire male contractors like plumbers, carpenters, etc. If they do, it's not even a case where they don't want to hire men, they simply don't want to hire them for that job.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The government doesn't tell you who you can hire. You're not required to hire anyone, however, if you choose the government places restrictions on what you can and can't do.

"The government doesn't subjugate businesses, it just subjugates businesses. IT'S TOTES DIFFERENT BRO." /rolleyes

No. I get that you are probably in favor of the government having control over the means of production, but I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of liberty, so we are in direct disagreement, at least in principle. This is the fundamental distinction between someone on the right (I.e. me) and a standard leftist (I.e. you).

The first is if women are a protected class, men should be a protected class as well.

Neither should be a protected class, that's my point.

That's equality.

Men and women are not the same and therefore should not be treated the same. The notion of "equality" is a holdover from socialist/communist rhetoric. Again I get that there are a lot of socialists/communists here, I don't agree with their political ideology of totalitarianism.

The second is it's not an issue of freedom of association.

Correct, that's why I said property rights and freedom of association. Both are required for my argument to be sustained.

If you take something out of context the way you did, of course it's easy to refute.

Freedom of association is an odd argument.

Taking something out of context is s bad argument.

Try again, except without taking one aspect of an argument wildly out of context.

a business open to the general public has a much weaker position making this case

No.

Property rights + freedom of association = We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, at any time for any reason. This also extends to hiring. A business owner has the right , in a free nation, to run his business as he see's fit. That's what those rights mean. Government should not strip these rights from the citizenry, places that do that are utterly repugnant socialist/communist shitholes (Ex: The U.K., Germany, Sweden, etc.). Liberty is the highest value, not subjugation.

In any case , your entire argument relies on taking something I said out of context so there's no point in responding to most of it.

[–]andejoh 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bot_Metric 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't really see why property rights would matter.

I take it you are a socialist/communist then?

What kind of statement is "I don't see why property rights should matter"? wtf?

government needs money to operate, hence taxes

Show me where I have said taxes shouldn't exist.

You will have trouble finding such a statement, and I get that you are a commie , but even a commie should understand that a strawman is a bad argument.

Restrictions don't necessarily abridge liberty.

Depends on the restriction.

And in this case, subjugating the populace by stripping them of their rights along the lines of what a socialist/communist would prefer would absolutely be subjugation. Only a commie would think otherwise.

restrictions ensures liberty.

WTF?

No. Subjugation does not "ensure liberty", that is pure unadulterated insanity. By definition subjugation is contrary to liberty, 100% of the time.

[–]andejoh 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

just a guy who spent the last 30 or so years working in IT and just got used to using logic and reason.

You dare invoke logic and reason after making the incredibly asinine statement "I don't see why property rights should matter"?

I find your contradictions unpallatable.....

Unless you're willing to state that business should be totally unregulated

Depends on the business, depends on what EXACTLY you mean by "regulation" and it depends if it is a fully privatized endeavor rather than a potentially subsidized one or even a governmental program.

As someone who allegedly spent "the last 30 years or so working in IT and just got used to using logic and reason" you should already know that context matters, and your context-less statement is without merit.

However, the basic concept is; The less government subjugation of the citizenry, the better. Liberty is the highest value to hold, always.

you agree that government has the right to regulate business.

Again, it depends. The examples I use are ; A pharmacy or a pharmaceutical company? yes, the government should regulate it, absolutely.... heavily even (Ex: Controlled medicine comes to mind).

A fast food stand? no, zero or as close to zero regulation as is possible. Same with a clothing shop , an arcade, an entertainment center, etc.

You haven't yet provided a single reason outside of freedom of association

I guess PROPERTY RIGHTS continues to evade you.

I understand you are a leftist and probably a socialist/communist, but it is not only a value of the right, but an absolute sovereign human value that property rights be respected and observed. Government subjugation, I.e. stripping the citizenry of property rights and freedom of association goes directly counter to human nature.

Leftists ironically agree with this completely, the problem is, the average leftist thinks that they will get to dictate how the subjugation will occur and that only non-leftists will be subjugated. It's such a flimsy argument to have that I find it rather pathetic....

[–]orcscorper 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have read your comments for a couple of years now

I've only been posting on this account for about 2 years, so I find it questionable that the above quoted is anywhere near accurate.

You think most people on r/MensRights are socialists/communists?

Show me a quote of me saying "Most people [here] are socialists/communists.

Put your money where your mouth is, little one. Substantiate your bullshit claim.... of course you can't because I have never made that argument.

0/10 on that false accusation.

In an ideal world

Nirvana fallacy / strawman argument.

No, not an "ideal world", in a free nation, in a nation where liberty is respected and subjugation is not considered a high value.

In the real world, every decision is fraught with peril.

Only in a nation that has become subjugated and adopted aspects of socialist/communist tendencies (Ex: The U.K.).

Acknowledging this reality does not make one a communist, but a realist.

What "reality"? you didn't say anything, you are doing a gish gallop.

If we have to fear discriminating against women, then they should fear discriminating against men.

No.

I strongly disagree with that. No one should be "afraid of discriminating" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean) within their just rights . I.e. property rights and freedom of association.

Rather than subjugate more peple (I.e. government overreach) the correct path is to respect the rights of the citizenry and ensure that property rights/freedom of association are respected.

You are advocating for the exact opposite, for maximum government overreach and I cannot agree that that's a reasonable path. I am uncertain as to whether you are a socialist/communist, but you are absolutely a leftist and I am afraid I cannot agree with your argument that subjugation is the correct path.

I simply do not agree with totalitarianism. You do, I don't.

[–]andejoh 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Put your money where your mouth is, little one. Substantiate your bullshit claim.... of course you can't because I have never made that argument.

Have you even made an argument yet? You've spouted an ideology? You've called people names nit as polished and well as I've insulted you though. I've yet to see where an argument has actually been made.

You either believe that business should be completely unregulated or you believe that government could regulate business. There is no in between. The question then becomes to what extent should government be able to regulate business?

Try pulling some other rights out of your ass and see if that flies. We should be able to discriminate against men because guns rights. Oh wait, maybe it's the right against self incrimination or maybe it's privacy rights. I got it. It's abortion rights.

It's time for you to let the adults talk.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you even made an argument yet?

Many, MANY times.

How about you?

You either believe that business should be completely unregulated

Never once made such an argument.

Strawman detected.

or you believe that government could regulate business. There is no in between

False dichotomy detected.

It would depend on the business model, the business type and whether we're talking about the private sector or a government funded/subsidized business.

Your all-or-nothing nonsense holds no water. Context matters.

The question then becomes to what extent should government be able to regulate business?

By "regulate", it is necessary to specify; Are we talking about something like a pharmacy or a pharmaceutical company? that absolutely should be regulated, heavily even (Ex: Controlled medicine comes to mind).

Are we talking about a fast food stand? minimal or as close to zero regulation as possible. Again, context matters, little one.

Try pulling some other rights out of your ass

I get that you leftists despise liberty and want maximum government overreach, but intelligent men always oppose such concepts.

It's time for you to let the adults talk.

Says the leftist, heh.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bangsoul[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link