Discrimination

I would like to know what exactly constitutes discrimination? Is it discrimination to make beastiality a criminal act? Are we criminalizing what should be a person's right to love who they love? Is it discrimination to disallow men to be security guards at women's prisons to remove any threat of misconduct? I would like to know what ya'lls thoughts are on this.

I think with beastiality that its wrong because the animal cant voice thats what they want. I havent seen a animal treat a human that certain way without a leash or something controlling them. Its rape of the animal because the animal has no choice in the matter.

I also think not having male gaurds in a female prison not only protects the prison from promoting misconduct in the eyes of the mediabut protects those gaurds from false claims of rape and things like that. Granted the female gaurds are capable of the same thing but its less likely in a same sex situation for sex crimes.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

But even with the textbook definition, discrimination itself is too open for interpretation. Is it alright for a private religious sect to deny entrance from people that are not that religion or is that discrimination based on religion even though it is a private entity?
Even taking the guards out (which I think they should do with females also) that is technically hiring based on sex, so cant that be discrimination?

Quoting ... Does Not Make You a C:“ But even with the textbook definition, discrimination itself is too open for interpretation. Is it alright ... [snip!] ... out (which I think they should do with females also) that is technically hiring based on sex, so cant that be discrimination?”

Well a religion would normaly allow those outside of it to come see it because they would want others to believe how they believe. I do think it would be discrimination in both situations though. Saying you cant do "this" if you are "this" is discrimination. I dont think they can say no you cant have this job but they can say this is at your own risk. Its open to different views on the matter but you also have to consider what is appropriate and whats not. Is it appropriate to not hire a child because they are "underage" which is age discrimination? While saying you cant do this because of your skin or your beliefs or your ancestors is entirely different and I feel in no way should be tolerated. Age discrimination is appropraite in certain situations as is sex discrimination (both male and female) may also be appropraite but it depends on the situation.

It is illegal to not hire someone based on sex, race, or handicap, but it is legal to hire someone because of their color, sex or handicap.

Quoting Pr0nkBeth:“ It is illegal to not hire someone based on sex, race, or handicap, but it is legal to hire someone because of their color, sex or handicap.”

Well isnt that quite the double standard? Sorry it took so long, I am doing a powerpoint presentation on the Federal Reserve and inflation and I am terribly bored... So instead of homework, I am on babygaga.

Quoting ... Does Not Make You a C:“ Well isnt that quite the double standard? Sorry it took so long, I am doing a powerpoint presentation ... [snip!] ... presentation on the Federal Reserve and inflation and I am terribly bored... So instead of homework, I am on babygaga.”

It kind of is but who is going to complain if they benifit from it? However, by hiring someone because they are a certain race they are also NOT hiring someone because they arent that race. The thing is though the person who isnt hired wont know exactly "why" the other person got the job so they actually dont know they are being discriminated against.

Quoting Cowgirl47429:“ It kind of is but who is going to complain if they benifit from it? However, by hiring someone because ... [snip!] ... hired wont know exactly "why" the other person got the job so they actually dont know they are being discriminated against.”

Exactly the whole point of this thread. How can anyone really claim discrimination when essentially everyone is being discriminated against on some level? Why do we justify some types of discrimination, and criminalize others?

Quoting ... Does Not Make You a C:“ Exactly the whole point of this thread. How can anyone really claim discrimination when essentially ... [snip!] ... everyone is being discriminated against on some level? Why do we justify some types of discrimination, and criminalize others?”

I dont like any discrimination unless its like underage cant drink or whatever sort of thing. What makes it hard is that every company has to have a certain percentage of each group when they should hire whoever is best for the job. Saying John Doecant have the job because he is white and you need someone who is black to meet the requirement is wrong. However, they are also trying to prevent someone only hiring a certain ethnicity. If they could make sure that doesnt happen without having to have a huge commitee intervue eevery person for every job in the world/country whatever they probably would but thats basically impossible. Its a line thats hard to say is one way or the other because people would always try and find ways around it or in turn become discriminating yet you wouldnt be able to really "prove" they were discriminating because they will just say keep looking for a hispanic that is better then a white person so they wont have to hire the one they dont want.

I don't 100% agree with it, but I could see why someone would want to hire people based on looks or race, say if it was somesort of authentic restaraunt. When I go to an authentic Mexican place, I want the people to at least appear to be hispanic. Does that make sense?

Quoting ... Does Not Make You a C:“ I would like to know what exactly constitutes discrimination? Is it discrimination to make beastiality ... [snip!] ... security guards at women's prisons to remove any threat of misconduct? I would like to know what ya'lls thoughts are on this.”

Unlawful discrimination can be characterized as direct or slightly less direct. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favorably because of their possession of an attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, family status, national origin, military status, disability), compared with someone without that attribute in the same circumstances. An example of direct discrimination would be not giving a woman a job because she is more likely to take maternity leave. Indirect discrimination involves setting a condition or requirement which a smaller proportion of those with the attribute are able to comply with, without reasonable justification. The case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company[2] provides an example of indirect discrimination, where an aptitude test used in job applications was found "to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than white applicants".

Making bestiality illegal would not be discrimination in my opinion for two reasons, the first is that while there is a human in the equation, there is also an animal, and animals are not protected by anti-discrimination laws the way humans are. The second is that animals cannot give informed consent to sexual acts, and as such the act is rape, and making it legal would be making rape legal. It would be a violation of the "rights" of the animal (while animals don't have rights, per se, there are animal cruelty laws for example, so there's precedent for people being legally punished for abusing animals, and raping an animal is arguably abuse).

I think the scenario with male guards in a women's prison could constitute discrimination, because it is based both upon denying someone a job because of their sex and because it assumes that the male will take advantage of his position in an illegal way.

C.