http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/index.html

“you force yourselves to the extreme on a lot of common sense issues.”
there is only one self here…..

“The reason why ENDA deals with negative laws and the reason why it is justified is because it protects people from a harm”

so how far are you willing to support this idea?

-i have no right to kill anyone. therefore neither do you. i have no right to steal. therefore neither do you.

i am coming from the idea that rights are defined by each individuals’ rights. freedom is limited. yes, but only limited by other’s rights which are defined by property. the “personal bubble” or “comfort zone” are other words for property rights. it will be an intersting day indeed when people are jailed for being discriminatory. i,e, thought crimes.
remember, in US law currently, there are different definitions of property which, when defined, might give some clarity as to the seriousness of such legislation as ENDA. i,e, commercial property vs private property.

obviously the idea of “group rights” comes from the fact that “certain groups” are identified based on certain conditions.

so do i have the right to discriminate?

if we are to apply this legislation, i do not have a right to discriminate “on the basis of” or “on the grounds of” race, gender, etc.

-i think the idea of ENDA is not so much outlawing discrimination, per se, but rather, it is guaranteeing a redress for grievances, losses, etc. if such a circumstance as discrimination occurs with regards to employment.

and remember, this law can be applied even before one is ever even employed!!

so we shouldn’t be talking about discrimination, because really we are talking about breach of contract. i.e., federal legislation.

shouldn’t an employer have the choice to offer ADA or ENDA as a contract to be signed as opposed to this being federal legislation and everyone is forced to comply?

just as supermarkets may have to provide information about the products they carry so people can best discriminate between the products, this way an employee could also discriminate between employers.

(it’s early, i hope you can understand what i wrote. lol)

for example. a man more eloquent than i……

“Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ”
The Trouble With Forced Integration

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty……..”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

and it’s not revisionism…..

The Spooner page about why the Constitution made slavery illegal is so far out there, I really can’t tell if you posted it as a joke or not. If he, you, or anybody else actually believes that the Constitution prohibited slavery, then you have bought into the biggest piece of revisionism I have ever heard of.