they should have

they blocked the vote

exactly

but they should not have confirmed if they didnt want to

ok back on the protections of minorities should we protect remove all protected classes

the reason for blocking the vote was dumb

yes

the reason was for a right leaning justice. Obama even game them a hard centrist

and they still said no

what do you think will happen to southern states if we remove minority protections

replacing a originalist with a centrist (we probably disagree on what a centrist is), come on. When RBG dies you will probably not be fine with republicans nominating a "hard centrist"

just don't take rights away from people then I probably don't care

you dont have a right to be thought of highly by other people, you dont have a right to be employed by anyone and you dont have a right to be respected or accepted in anyones community

"what do you think will happen to southern states if we remove minority protections" - nothing, you really think people cant be racist in their hiring now?

sure, as long as that discrimination is not on the basis of the protected classes

they can be but if found out they will have a problem on their hands

no they will just find other reasons to fire someone now, if you really wanna fire someone for being black or white or whatever you can always find a legitimate reason if you just look hard enough

then why care if it in law if you believe that

And you should be able to discriminate against people for any reason you want. You dont have to associate with anyone you dislike business or private for any reason whatsoever. You dont like black people dont - fine, you dont like straight people - fine, you dont like transgender people - fine, you dont like conservatives - fine. No member of a "protected class" has the right to demand employment or acceptance in a private group. People should associate with whom they please.

""No member of a "protected class" has the right to demand employment or acceptance in a private group"" I agree unless they own a PUBLIC business or are a property owner, and I don't think the protected classes are DEMANDING jobs from people just don't say no based on their trait

"then why care if it in law if you believe that" - because it creates the precedent that the government has the power to force you to associate with people you dont like, even if they are really lousy at implementation

this seems childish the only scenario you get to decide who you associate with is by being an owner of capital. Being a worker you don't get to decide anything like who you work with or who owns your building

yes you do. If you have two job offers you can say I dont like the boss in company A because he is black or gay or a republican I rather work for company B. Nothing wrong in this scenario.

sure, but how many people get to choose from a wide variety of jobs?

and you can make a point to rather live in a building owned by someone you like. Also workers can have their own houses.

'just buy a house'

no you are just assuming no worker has their own house which seems like a stretch

I think this is a good example of where I disagree with most conservatives. This idea of absolute agency and everything bad that has happened to you or whatever spot you're in in life is your fault and always will be

and are you telling me you never got the opportunity to work another job even for less money if you really didnt want to work for the company you work for now? You accepting another job for less money because you dont like your current employer is like an employer not hiring a competent member of a protected class because they dont like them, but hiring a less competent member of a group they like. You both lose in that scenario but you can make a bad trade if you want to.

I'm not talking about me in this context I'm referring to someone living paycheck to paycheck stuck in their job

The amount of choice an owner has vs a worker in so large

depending on the worker of course

there is always someone surviving on less then you so you being really stuck is more a matter of convenience. And yes if you are not competent and have not generated a lot of surplus for the society you live in (which is what owners of capital have done to get that capital) you have less of a bargaining position. But that is just what happens when you give people the right control their own productivity. Some people have more to offer than others. You can only get rid of that by taking control of peoples productivity and forcing them to work and give the reward of their work (capital) to other people for a price you set. Putting a gun to someones head and saying you will give away the fruits of your labor for a certain price because your abilities give you to much of a bargaining position, so we take control of them is slavery.

Btw I have worked on production lines with very "poor" people and I can tell you they didnt end there by chance. Also they are wasting a LOT of money on stuff they dont need. So if some of the poorest people have enough money left to purchase a lot of junk who is really stuck on a job/couldnt work for a little less? If even the poorest people are have money left.

go to a homeless shelter and see how many are smoking cigarettes or spending every penny on booze. Some of them are addicted, others just can't delay self-gratification and blow all their money and question why they can't afford to buy a house/rent an appartment

why do you think poor people stay poor and rich people stay rich @scaevola @Draco552

sry I left I was talking to someone

because they don't know how to manage money

do you mean over time or between generations?

why can't they manage money? and both scaevola

Some people are just bad at managing money (meaning they would have to be taught and work hard at managing their money), other people just give in to temptations and decide to manage money poorly