If you get the job with near equal credentials to someone else, it's less of a problem. It's just discrimination for the need to fill some kind of quota just because it looks nice.Dulcet wrote:
oh yeah as if I would apply for a job that I am under qualified for it already. If I get that job, then I'd agree with you. That's bullshit. But if I get the job I have the credentials for, what's there to complain about?Khelly wrote:
Besides, even if they could find another job, that's not even one of the problems. The problem is that YOU who are under qualified are being put in a position that could better be served by someone else.
e2: This is a problem for the company and how that company benefits the outside world in some small way as a result of your potential incapabilities compared to the other person.
But the problem comes when there's a choice of candidates and the employer has to choose the less qualified "affirmative actioned" one because they're required to.
To me, marriage is entirely a fiscal procedure and his opnion in that regard is relevant. It's almost like you can view marriage in different ways to different people!Railey2 wrote:
He completely disregards the emotional, the social and the religious part of it. He reduces marriage to a fiscal procedure to try and make his argument work.
I don't think marriage should be barred between any two people because it doesn't fucking matter who gets married to whom and if you say gays shouldn't marry because they can get financial benefit then why does that not apply to straight people?