- We do not allow pedophiles to work with children, even if they've been released from prison as a precaution for the children.
- We do not allow those without the proper training to use specific pieces of equipment
- We do not allow those that we don't trust to interact with us or our children
- There are countless examples of society discriminating against people or against particular issues.
- The state does not allow those that are brother and sister to get married
Of course there could be an endless list of when these things happen, but do we bother to look at why? In most cases, the why is obvious, but sometimes, not blatantly so.
In the first case of not allowing a pedophile to work with children. Obviously we're trying to protect the children from being in a potentially dangerous situation.
Now let's throw a wrinkle in this situation...Let's say that the pedophile has a degree in child development, has been out of prison for about 10 years, and throws in good references. Do we still not allow him the job? Of course we don't...again, we place the safety of the children over the desires of the pedophile seeking work. Some may say, what about the pedophile? Does he not have a right to work? Well, no, there isn't a right to work per se. A person does have a right to seek work, but to be hired, not so much....otherwise all of us upon interview would have to be hired. In this situation discrimination is justified for the sake of protection of the children. It's not to say that a normal employee can't abuse children....but it's about minimizing the risk....bringing the probability down
In the second case, of not allowing those without proper training to handle particular equipment. The person without the proper training could very well damage the equipment beyond repair making for expensive repairs. Is it to say even with the proper training that this can't happen? No, but the probability is minimized. The point is to minimize the likelihood of things going wrong. We can't prevent things from going wrong always, but to minimize them, yes, this can be done.
In the third situation, those of you with children understand this completely. Heck even those of you without children understand this....If there's anyone in particular that we don't trust, they don't get our interaction or what not. It's for our own protection (or children) or what not. Once again, it's not to say that even people we trust can't stab us or do something to betray us (often times they do) but it's once again about minimizing the risk.
The 4th situation of the state not allowing those that are brother and sister to get married is slightly more interesting. The state is on the lookout for it's own interests of course, and amongst the interests are it's continuation. This is done by an increase in population obviously. The state gives tax benefits to those that are married as a sort of "gambling" or a "wager" so to speak, for lack of a better analogy. Any marriage has the potentiality of having children (those that are unable to conceive are obviously exempt)...but the thought of a marriage having children...kind of works like this: state gives you money now (or rather tax break, so more money goes in your pocket) so that the children will give the money back later. (as future tax payers) (One can argue whether children should be looked on as property, they shouldn't...their dignity is more than this obviously)....Now these benefits are not necessary for a marriage to exist...but they are there to help promote the future of the state. In a brother/sister marriage, the likelihood of producing children is small, in addition there are several things that can go wrong. The state rightly discriminates against this and does not allow for this to happen. An extension of this is so called homosexual marriage. How does this help the state? These "marriages" will not produce children in of themselves. (An outside source would have to intervene)....It's self defeating, for the state it really doesn't serve much of a purpose to allow this to happen. This is why tax benefits do not make sense for the homosexual "couple" in the strictest sense. What would the government be wagering on? It's a 100% chance that children will not happen. (Even if they're allowed to adopt, children did not come from two people in question). Although now, the government doesn't discriminate against such, in some states, this situation is not allowed to happen.
Unjust discrimination is when something that would not get in the way of a thing being done. For example, the color of one's skin does not prevent one from working as a teacher or in a particular field.
Some might say one's "sexaul orientation" does not prevent one from doing a job...Well perhaps not, but there are environmental issues that come up. It is typical that we as a society try to prevent things from happening to the best of our ability. Placing a person who is attracted to children in front of children, not a good idea, even if they may not act on it, still again best to prevent a situation, rather than promote it. Likewise a homosexual in a situation may or may not act out on those thoughts or desires, but the question becomes does one want a situation where workplace productivity could be interrupted by things that should not happen in the workplace? What about the others in the workplace? Should not an environment for work be such that everyone can work in peace and not worry? Again, does it imply that a situation will break out? Absolutely not, but again it's better to prevent, than to have a situation happen and things be far worse than normal.
For a business, that seeks a certain clientele, does it have a right to refuse service to people? In particular situations absolutely (a family resturarnt for example, and two people walk in behaving immodestly for example....to protect the patrons of the restruant, in this situation, they'd have an obligation to deny them service....)....It's an example of the just discrimination practice once again.
In the news recently, there was a law that was going to be passed by Arizona that allowed businesses to deny services to homosexuals because of the owner's religious beliefs. One of the things we can't do is be an accessory in another's sin, this is why we can't be a 3rd party involved with a sin (indirect participation in a sin)...This is the perspective of the owner, which does have a right to do this. A person has a right to practice their beliefs in public. Now the question would have to come, how can one tell if one is homosexual? The eye test? The Justin Bieber playing on their raido? Clearly this is a situation of subjectivity, and why although in good intent, the law was rightfully vetoed. There has to be an objective way for people to be able to discern these things. Remember that people are innocent until proven guilty (in spite of the modern practice of guilt until proven innocent)....and people have a right to not be questioned either...
There are certainly times where we have to use subjective things to discriminate, but for the most part if we're going to discriminate against anything, there needs to be objective evidence towards that end. But I hope that people learn the difference between the two.