Deprived and prejudice.
emember, in 2010, Hispanic activists in San Antonio said not letting people smoke at work is racist, too.
So what is a control-freak nanny statist to do? Any hiring or employment practice that adversely and disproportionately affects minority groups is prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. Yet being able to tell people what they can't do both at home and at work is orgasmically A Good Thing™. But if activists start claiming that testing for nicotine use amounts to racial profiling, you risk being hauled into courts of law and public opinion, defending yourself against multiple lawsuits and irreparably bad publicity. Picture "Teh Revs." Jackson, Sharpton et al. showing up at your door and saying, "Nice business you have here. Shame if someone like me happened to call it racist!" It's a conundrum.
Sure, you could present facts and data to support your reasons for engaging in this discriminatory practice. But that won't matter. Once it's beset with the "allegedly racist" label, you'll never hear the end of it until — and likely even after — you ditch it.
Best you can do is make exceptions for any "poorer individuals, including those from minority groups, who, under a ban on employees who smoke, will lose the opportunity to work for an employer that offers health insurance, long-term advancement, and retirement benefits." You still get to tell
unprotected non-minority/non-lower income employees what they can't do outside the workplace. Win-win!
Labels: fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), liberal hypocrites (BIRM), liberal racism, liberalism: THE ideology of hate, liberals are always extreme, Nation of lawyers, socialist injustice, Victimhood Inc.
Comments (registered users)