Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act

[snberk103]

First off, military is a core part of state, along with law and order, embassies, etc, unlike many of the areas which govt has increasingly empowered itself. However, they should be budgeted to suit a country's need.

If you live in a relatively safe country, as do I, then military spending should indeed be curtailed to that which is still necessary (I hate waste, too)…..

With respect, I'm not sure the military is any more a core part of a nation as taking care of its citizen's health. Wikipedia lists 15 countries with no military, and another 6 with no standing army and only a minimal military organization. That's about 10% of the world's nations… so obviously having a military is not required as a nation. I'm not advocating the complete abandonment of the military in your particular case…. just saying that in terms of protecting the well-being of its citizens moving away from a free-market healthcare system would be a better investment. And cheaper too. That is the other point… a single user pay system saves money. It all comes from the citizen's pockets in the long run…as we've agreed to before.

 

[lifeinhd]

That's absurd.

Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Good luck on finding a job candidate who has "none of the above" characteristics.

Makes sense there's a lot of white fully-abled Christian men in their 30s in business then (at least in the US).

In seriousness, at least that law doesn't highlight exactly what groups of people you can't discriminate against. Like it doesn't say "you can't discriminate against blacks" or "you can't hate Jews." This new law specifically singles out a group employers may want to avoid as a result.

 

[dec.]

Makes sense there's a lot of white fully-abled Christian men in their 30s in business then (at least in the US).

In seriousness, at least that law doesn't highlight exactly what groups of people you can't discriminate against. Like it doesn't say "you can't discriminate against blacks" or "you can't hate Jews." This new law specifically singles out a group employers may want to avoid as a result.

To be honest, I have only read summaries of the law, what is the exact wording of it where it singles out that group?

 

[localoid]

Makes sense there's a lot of white fully-abled Christian men in their 30s in business then (at least in the US).

In seriousness, at least that law doesn't highlight exactly what groups of people you can't discriminate against. Like it doesn't say "you can't discriminate against blacks" or "you can't hate Jews." This new law specifically singles out a group employers may want to avoid as a result.

Clearly, you don't understand how the EEOC laws work.

You might think those white fully-abled Christian men are "safe" to hire, but they can also file EEOC discrimination charges against your company if you, you know, discriminate against them...

County Administrator Wins $1.2 Million In 'Reverse Discrimination' Case

Suggested viewing: Watch the video at the bottom of the page. It explains how some of the hiring practices a business should follow to avoid discrimination issues.

 

[citizenzen]

In seriousness, at least that law doesn't highlight exactly what groups of people you can't discriminate against. Like it doesn't say "you can't discriminate against blacks" or "you can't hate Jews." This new law specifically singles out a group employers may want to avoid as a result.

To be honest, I have only read summaries of the law, what is the exact wording of it where it singles out that group?

I must be skimming more than usual and missed something.

What new law are you two talking about?

Edit: Silly me. They must be talking about the bill that passed the senate mentioned in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1668676/

 

[OLDCODGER]

With respect, I'm not sure the military is any more a core part of a nation as taking care of its citizen's health. Wikipedia lists 15 countries with no military, and another 6 with no standing army and only a minimal military organization. That's about 10% of the world's nations… so obviously having a military is not required as a nation. I'm not advocating the complete abandonment of the military in your particular case…. just saying that in terms of protecting the well-being of its citizens moving away from a free-market healthcare system would be a better investment. And cheaper too. That is the other point… a single user pay system saves money. It all comes from the citizen's pockets in the long run…as we've agreed to before.

On this planet, if in a main-stream nation, without military at all you could be dead, and therefore wouldn't need health care (or anything else). Very few nations can ignore the possibly of aggression against them. I think that security, upon which to build a nation, would be a priority.

 

[ElectronGuru]

As with many things, the problem is balance.

It doesn't make sense to spend yourself into bankruptcy keeping a military many times larger than needed. It also doesn't make sense not to have one. Many of the 15 examples are part of a larger protectorate. One (the Vatican) is literally inside another country.

It's been reported that had Somalia had a military to protect its waters from visiting fishing trawlers, their own fishermen would not have resorted to piracy. Sometimes, there's just no substitute for force (or the threat of force). It's human nature to go after unprotected resources.

BTW, I'm also a big fan of efficiency. Things that can be done better in private hands should be done privately. And things that can be done better in public hands, should be done publicly. There are examples of both (good and bad) through many threads here.

 

[snberk103]

On this planet, if in a main-stream nation, without military at all you could be dead, and therefore wouldn't need health care (or anything else). Very few nations can ignore the possibly of aggression against them. I think that security, upon which to build a nation, would be a priority.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea - just that it is not a "core" requirement. With so many countries without a military, or with a minimal military, apparently it is possible to have a nation without a military as a core responsibility.

If you just look at the 'developed' nations (as defined by Wikipedia) then there are 3 times as many nations without a military (or with minimal military) as nations without universal healthcare - the US being the one developed nation without UHC. So my point is simply that a military, while perhaps prudent, is not a core requirement. Which negates your point about the military being a core requirement, but not UHC.

 

[Eraserhead]

On this planet, if in a main-stream nation, without military at all you could be dead, and therefore wouldn't need health care (or anything else). Very few nations can ignore the possibly of aggression against them. I think that security, upon which to build a nation, would be a priority.

Empires have proven to be pretty pointless. And without gross human rights abuses I'm not sure how you'd organise one.

 

[niuniu]

I think that is a fair assessment. As with many debates on here I think my initial point was lost by some people. I have no objection to people living their lives as they wish. I don't wish to push my beliefs on to anyone else. I can understand the need for equality and if gay people feel they are being discriminated against then they have the right to express that and peacefully push for reform without resorting to criticising everyone who disagrees or calling them racists. That only demeans them and their arguments.

All I ask is that people respect both sides of the argument. There are many people who hold certain beliefs based on their faith. Those beliefs should not be the subject of ridicule or abuse just because they hold a different view. I don't try to impose my Christian beliefs on people of other faiths and in the main they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. We coexist peacefully.

Gay people need to recognise that they have the right to equality and so forth but they absolutely do not have the right to expect everyone else in society to agree with them. I honestly don't know why a gay person would be bothered what my view is. It doesn't affect them and their ability to live their life as they chose. I'm not a politician.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways

You can't use 'faith' or any wish-wash to defend bigotry. 21st Century now. You have to act like a grown-up. There is no argument. Anyone that doesn't like, support, or thinks that homosexuality is in any way wrong - is a bigot.

Freedom of expression cuts one way for everyone - and that's lawful.