[timm22]

You have the freedom to think whatever you want about other races or people with different genes than you, but you shouldn't have the right to deny them employment or insurance based on those prejudices, regardless of how "fact based" the genetic discrimination is.

Why not?

Isn't the "employment" owned by the employer, and the insurance owned by the insurer?

Do you believe people have a "right" to employment or a "right" to insurance?

[messierhunter]

Well folks, I guess we should just let people discriminate against black people if they want to. Even if the discriminated can prove their case they should get nothing. Wonderful, I think we just regressed FR to the late 19th century.

You're trying to use a frakking strawman here, I never said you had a "right" to employment. I said you don't have the right to abuse other people with your "rights." Discriminating against someone for reasons such as race that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the job itself is not the right of the employer. That doesn't mean the same thing as having a right to employment, it just means that your employer does not has a right to discriminate on the basis of things which have nothing to do with the job. "Affirmitive action" is an example of believing in a "right to employment" by forcing companies to fill quotas regardless of job qualifications, but that's not what I'm advocating.

I thought most Freepers were against allowing racist discrimination, maybe I was wrong about that.