Tennessee can now discriminate...

[zsdersw]

Sure doesn't seem like he's the one crying...... just sayin'

He's the one getting bent out of shape about it. "Sheesh" was used enough to indicate that.

 

[zsdersw]

You are the one crying.. you started this thread to whine and now you don't like being called out on your false title? go figure.

I find your "sheesh"s amusing... its not a word usually used by someone who isn't pissed off or whining.

 

[nonlnear]

I agree that regulation of private businesses is burdensome, but the answer isn't to add burdens at the state level instead of at the city/county level.

Actually I would prefer human rights legislation be kept at the state level or higher. I don't trust municipalities to have the resources or the expertise to develop sensible legislation, not to mention I really dislike patchwork regulations, especially for things that aren't "naturally" local - e.g. utilities, zoning, etc.

If you truly believe sexual orientation to be ab issue of human rights, and not one of "local color" then I don't see why you think more local regulation is a good thing. Things that pertain to fundamental rights ought to be kept as high up the hierarchy of jurisdiction as possible.

 

[zsdersw]

Actually I would prefer human rights legislation be kept at the state level or higher. I don't trust municipalities to have the resources or the expertise to develop sensible legislation, not to mention I really dislike patchwork regulations, especially for things that aren't "naturally" local - e.g. utilities, zoning, etc.

If you truly believe sexual orientation to be ab issue of human rights, and not one of "local color" then I don't see why you think more local regulation is a good thing. Things that pertain to fundamental rights ought to be kept as high up the hierarchy of jurisdiction as possible.

Its the principle of competence. The bigger the government, the more incompetent it is. If things like this are to exist, they should exist in the smallest area possible, which is cities/counties.

 

[nonlnear]

Its the principle of competence. The bigger the government, the more incompetent it is. If things like this are to exist, they should exist in the smallest area possible, which is cities/counties.

Despite my libertarian sympathies I reject the premise highlighted in bold. It is generally true for things that don't scale well (like bureaucracies). However not all facets of law exhibit the same characteristics. Some actually do scale very well, not to mention that laws pertaining to values held by a national conscience to be "fundamental" reap other benefits from uniformity.

To dig into the competence conjecture deeper, discrimination law is incredibly technical stuff. I simply don't see how you can reasonably believe that it is more efficient to have cities and counties developing a patchwork of regulations when the expertise would be insanely expensive (because you KNOW that developing these laws at the local level would involve legal consultants who overbill hours at rates in the $500/hour ballpark, to be hired by every city and county, right?). Not to mention that there wouldn't be nearly sufficient caseloads in each local jurisdiction to really test all the crap that would inevitably find its way into the local patchwork of regulation.

Like yourself, I'm generally inclined to keep most aspects of regulation as local as feasible. However I don't blindly apply any "local is better" rule across the board. Sometimes local is not better.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I find your "sheesh"s amusing... its not a word usually used by someone who isn't pissed off or whining.

or it's said by someone who feels like they are talking to a small child.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It's a beautiful state.

It is a beautiful state. I have a valley picked out to retire to. It's just west of Newport.

 

[zsdersw]

Despite my libertarian sympathies I reject the premise highlighted in bold. It is generally true for things that don't scale well (like bureaucracies). However not all facets of law exhibit the same characteristics. Some actually do scale very well, not to mention that laws pertaining to values held by a national conscience to be "fundamental" reap other benefits from uniformity.

To dig into the competence conjecture deeper, discrimination law is incredibly technical stuff. I simply don't see how you can reasonably believe that it is more efficient to have cities and counties developing a patchwork of regulations when the expertise would be insanely expensive (because you KNOW that developing these laws at the local level would involve legal consultants who overbill hours at rates in the $500/hour ballpark, to be hired by every city and county, right?). Not to mention that there wouldn't be nearly sufficient caseloads in each local jurisdiction to really test all the crap that would inevitably find its way into the local patchwork of regulation.

Like yourself, I'm generally inclined to keep most aspects of regulation as local as feasible. However I don't blindly apply any "local is better" rule across the board. Sometimes local is not better.

The sin of government regulation/laws/control should always be as limited in scope as possible. A patchwork of regulations administered by cities/counties that's done poorly is no better or worse than a state-wide set of regulations done poorly... but is the state any more likely to get it right? Hardly... even when it comes to discrimination rules. Most cities/counties defer to the discrimination rules of the state... and those who enact tougher anti-discrimination rules may end up doing it poorly, but again, the damage is limited to the city or county. If enough businesses have a problem with a city/county's tougher rules it's only the city/county that suffers. It's also easier for those rules to be changed/eliminated at the city/county level than at the state level.

I much prefer states to have less comprehensive anti-discrimination rules and let municipalities tighten the rope if they desire, instead of the state forcing either very limited or very comprehensive rules upon everyone in the state. Liberal social views are generally more common in bigger municipalities than in rural areas... and there's nothing untoward about regulations reflecting that.

 

[Fern]

Despite my libertarian sympathies I reject the premise highlighted in bold. It is generally true for things that don't scale well (like bureaucracies). However not all facets of law exhibit the same characteristics. Some actually do scale very well, not to mention that laws pertaining to values held by a national conscience to be "fundamental" reap other benefits from uniformity.

To dig into the competence conjecture deeper, discrimination law is incredibly technical stuff. I simply don't see how you can reasonably believe that it is more efficient to have cities and counties developing a patchwork of regulations when the expertise would be insanely expensive (because you KNOW that developing these laws at the local level would involve legal consultants who overbill hours at rates in the $500/hour ballpark, to be hired by every city and county, right?). Not to mention that there wouldn't be nearly sufficient caseloads in each local jurisdiction to really test all the crap that would inevitably find its way into the local patchwork of regulation.

Like yourself, I'm generally inclined to keep most aspects of regulation as local as feasible. However I don't blindly apply any "local is better" rule across the board. Sometimes local is not better.

Exactly.

Can you imagine a larger company with multiple locations trying to deal with differing policies? It would be a HR nightmare.

Then, if a company violates a local provision it means the city etc would have to take them to district court to enforce etc. That strikes me as wildly inefficient and expensive.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Exactly.

Can you imagine a larger company with multiple locations trying to deal with differing policies? It would be a HR nightmare.

Then, if a company violates a local provision it means the city etc would have to take them to district court to enforce etc. That strikes me as wildly inefficient and expensive.

Fern

Taking this to its logical extension, screw states rights, we should only have federal laws and regulations. The patchwork of state laws is an HR nightmare.

 

[Craig234]

Do you really want nothing but force of law stopping someone from discriminating against you?

I want to let people discriminate, I want to know who's racist, who's bigoted against homosexuals, or women etc. So I know not to give them a single cent of my money.

Wow, that's crappy spin.

Let's get rid of the civil rights act, so we KNOW which lunch counters don't serve blacks.

Typical of the blind right-wing ideologue, to have no common sense about protecting people's rights over some ideological dogma.

 

[Craig234]

Despite my libertarian sympathies I reject the premise highlighted in bold. It is generally true for things that don't scale well (like bureaucracies). However not all facets of law exhibit the same characteristics. Some actually do scale very well, not to mention that laws pertaining to values held by a national conscience to be "fundamental" reap other benefits from uniformity.

To dig into the competence conjecture deeper, discrimination law is incredibly technical stuff. I simply don't see how you can reasonably believe that it is more efficient to have cities and counties developing a patchwork of regulations when the expertise would be insanely expensive (because you KNOW that developing these laws at the local level would involve legal consultants who overbill hours at rates in the $500/hour ballpark, to be hired by every city and county, right?). Not to mention that there wouldn't be nearly sufficient caseloads in each local jurisdiction to really test all the crap that would inevitably find its way into the local patchwork of regulation.

Like yourself, I'm generally inclined to keep most aspects of regulation as local as feasible. However I don't blindly apply any "local is better" rule across the board. Sometimes local is not better.

Just recognizing when someone on the right ('libertarian tendencies') is being rational.

Blind ideology ("government bad ugh!") versus a more logical opinion.

 

[werepossum]

Taking this to its logical extension, screw states rights, we should only have federal laws and regulations. The patchwork of state laws is an HR nightmare.

I think there's a case to be made that Americans' rights should be set at a federal level and fiscal policies (except for interstate and international trade) should be set by the states. Unfortunately things seem to be going in the opposite direction, so that everyone is to be forced into the same health care plan but won't necessarily have the same marital status as they travel from state to state. Kind of bizarre in my opinion.

 

[Double Trouble]

Aside from the argument about this legislation being good or bad, the title of the thread says Tennessee can now discriminate, implying a change in ability to discriminate. Couldn't they discriminate before? As far as I can tell nothing has changed at the state level.

The real issue isn't really discrimination based on sexual preference, it's the issue of local jurisdiction rights versus state rights. This seems to reduce local rights in favor of the state. Not something I generally like, but with something like this it just doesn't seem to make sense to have companies and employers that operate in (potentially) many local jurisdictions to have to figure out many different laws and restrictions on their processes. The resulting litigation alone would be very expensive, and it would be a logistical nightmare.