Call someone an "illegal immigrant" in New York gets you a fine up to $250,000

[Primemuscle]

The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”

This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.

[Al Doggity]

If I'm a business owner and refuse to hire someone because they are an illegal alien, do I get fined? Am I discriminating and should be fined?

If I'm a bank and I don't give a credit card to an illegal alien, Am I discriminating and should be fined?

No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.

If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.

it being illegal doesnt stop it happening, thing is, even if it were legal to do, companies would never admit to doing it because they would go out of busines very soon

Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.

[joswift]

No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.

If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.

In reality companies are now forced with the threat of prosecution to employ people less qualified for a role because the fit some ethnic or gender criteria, diversity will be the death of success and production, diversity is not about intergration and a more diverse workforce its about dividing and disempowering the staff you already have.

They keep making the staement that diverse compnies perform better, really, try and find some credible evidence that this is true
Would an engineering and technology company that had a 50/50 spilt of male/female employes of every colour and rcae outperform a company made up of all Chinese or Japanese men?

[Primemuscle]

In reality companies are now forced with the threat of prosecution to employ people less qualified for a role because the fit some ethnic or gender criteria, diversity will be the death of success and production, diversity is not about intergration and a more diverse workforce its about dividing and disempowering the staff you already have.

They keep making the staement that diverse compnies perform better, really, try and find some credible evidence that this is true
Would an engineering and technology company that had a 50/50 spilt of male/female employes of every colour and rcae outperform a company made up of all Chinese or Japanese men?

Companies that document applicant's qualifications are not forced to hire anyone less qualified regardless of whether those applying for a position have minority status. This may not stop those folks who feel they have been illegally discriminated against from filing a lawsuit, but it will keep them from winning it.

[joswift]

Companies that document applicant's qualifications are not forced to hire anyone less qualified regardless of whether those applying for a position have minority status. This may not stop those folks who feel they have been illegally discriminated against from filing a lawsuit, but it will keep them from winning it.

positions can now be allocated on "best interview" qualifications can be safely ignored.

[Moontrane]

Why not ban racial, ethnic, or gay slurs "when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person?"

[joswift]

Why not ban racial, ethnic, or gay slurs "when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person?"

the only thing that should be banned is banning things.

[Primemuscle]

positions can now be allocated on "best interview" qualifications can be safely ignored.

I'm not going to take the time to look for it, but just a week or so ago there was a news article about someone who sued a perspective employer because they believed they had been discriminated against. The company doing the hiring was able to show that the plaintif was less qualified than the person hired into the position. The suit was dismissed.

This may not always be the way these situations end up, but employers should not hire less qualified people for fear of being litigated against. If they do this, they are a part of the problem. You're right though, whether or not someone interviews better can be subjective. The lines definining discrimination are not absolute.  

[longtimereader]

No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.

If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.

There are already laws addressing this, it is illegal to hire illegal aliens. Easy solution, enforce current laws, deport the illegal alien, fine the business for hiring them.

The democrats are doing everything possible to cater to illegals instead of following current laws and deporting them.

[TheShape.]

The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”

This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.

It’s actually pretty cut and dry, there’s no manipulative headline involved here. These invaders (yes, call them what they are) get more protection than any legal or natural born citizen. The way I see it it is a deliberate attempt to change the demographics in this country. The media already shows its hatred on a daily basis for the white people that built this country from scratch. We are not a nation of immigrants but a nation created by very intelligent Anglo Saxon colonizers.

[Al Doggity]

There are already laws addressing this, it is illegal to hire illegal aliens. Easy solution, enforce current laws, deport the illegal alien, fine the business for hiring them.

The democrats are doing everything possible to cater to illegals instead of following current laws and deporting them.

   You do realize that these guidelines don't just cover variations of the two examples you incorrectly used? They protect people who are here legally who are illegally denied services.

Even when it does protect those here illegally, I'm all for it. Undocumented workers are an important part of the American economy and especially the NY economy. Their resident status shouldn't make it easier for employers, landlords and businesses to take advantage of them.

[pellius]

Some people discriminate against others because of their ethnicity. I am not one of them. During WWII American citizens some of whom lived in Hawaii and who happened to also be Japanese or even part Japanese were interned.

I know the meaning of the discriminatory term haole because my daughter, son-in-law and grandson lived in Hawaii for five years. Being white, they were haole.

How can the average person know who is or isn't an illegal immigrant? The answer is they can't know. They assume this because person looks different and/or speaks a different language. Currently, the focus is on people who illegally enter this country when they cross the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Most of them appear to be Latino. Not all South American people living in U.S. are here illegally.

Yes, I believe there should continue to be laws against slander and defamation of character. Laws are proposed and enacted by legislators (the government).

How do I normally talk in your opinion?

You don't use the word "haole" in everyday speech. You used with me because I'm from Hawaii. Like you have to talk down in "my language". Brah, I understand White. Just like when a White person tries to talk "Black" with a Black. You feel me, G? Werd.

And its not an inherently negative discriminating
term. It just means you're white. In my case, I was referred to as hapa-haole, meaning I'm half White as my father is Irish and English, something you also got wrong because of your bias.

[pellius]

Some people discriminate against others because of their ethnicity. I am not one of them. During WWII American citizens some of whom lived in Hawaii and who happened to also be Japanese or even part Japanese were interned.

I know the meaning of the discriminatory term haole because my daughter, son-in-law and grandson lived in Hawaii for five years. Being white, they were haole.

How can the average person know who is or isn't an illegal immigrant? The answer is they can't know. They assume this because person looks different and/or speaks a different language. Currently, the focus is on people who illegally enter this country when they cross the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Most of them appear to be Latino. Not all South American people living in U.S. are here illegally.

Yes, I believe there should continue to be laws against slander and defamation of character. Laws are proposed and enacted by legislators (the government).

How do I normally talk in your opinion?

There are already laws against libel, published false statements. You can, or should be able to say anything you want in your private life. I can call you a niggah, a traitor, and even a illegal alien if I want.

But we get it, despite what you claim, you are a Leftist and want government to control more of our lives. In this case, free speech.

[pellius]

This law isn't about what people say in their private life. It's about how businesses and service providers interact with clients. Saying "illegal immigrant" has to be combined with an unjustified denial of service for this law to apply.

You're wrong about that. If I am a resident in an apartment building and I believe some new tenants are illegal aliens it is now illegal for me to report it.

And as far as service providers interacting with citizens, so what? If I decide not to hire someone because I think he is an illegal alien because he is unable to prove it. Maybe I don't want to rent to someone because he can't prove he is a citizen.

There are already laws on the books, strict laws, against racial and sexual discrimination.
The kicker here is that now it's not just what you say but what others feel you meant. Now the government are mind readers and have the power to determine your motivations.

[pellius]

shouldnt business and service providers be able to pick and choose who they provide a service to?

Yes, as long as it isn't based on sexual or racial discrimination.

[pellius]

If I'm a business owner and refuse to hire someone because they are an illegal alien, do I get fined? Am I discriminating and should be fined?

If I'm a bank and I don't give a credit card to an illegal alien, Am I discriminating and should be fined?

Discrimination has gotten a negative connotation across the board. That's wrong. Discrimination is a good thing as it shows you have standards. Everybody discriminates constantly every day of their lives: Who they associate with? What they buy? Where they go? Even their race, age sexual preference, or gender. Like maybe I am to date a woman and never a man. It is illegal for a business, employer, or service provider to discriminate against race or sex.

It is legal to discriminate against criminals such as illegal alien/immigrants.

[joswift]

Yes, as long as it isn't based on sexual or racial discrimination.

and as such racism and homophobia flourishes.

If you are allowed to say you didnt give a job to a gay man then the public would decide how long that business stays open.
If you are not allowed to say it then the homophobic company carries on trading..

[pellius]

The new guidance claims that “use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law.”

This is the key which has a very different meaning than either the tread or or the Washington Examiner article titles. This is another example of how the media manipulates the truth to satisfy their target audience. It been expressed that many people read only the headlines. This is too bad because the truth of a matter is very often buried in the article.

Spoken like a true Leftist.

It's OK to use the tem"illegal alien" as long as you say it in a nice way.

And you ask "how so?" that you don't represent and defend the principles in which this country was founded on.

[joswift]

Yes, as long as it isn't based on sexual or racial discrimination.

then

Discrimination has gotten a negative connotation across the board. That's wrong. Discrimination is a good thing as it shows you have standards. Everybody discriminates constantly every day of their lives: Who they associate with? What they buy? Where they go? Even their race, age sexual preference, or gender. Like maybe I am to date a woman and never a man. It is illegal for a business, employer, or service provider to discriminate against race or sex.

It is legal to discriminate against criminals such as illegal alien/immigrants.

so you can discriminate but a company cant?

[pellius]

No, but if you're a business owner and you hire someone but threaten to withhold their wages because they are undocumented, you should be fined. Which is what the law is addressing.

If you're a bank and you give a credit card to an undocumented immigrant and then charge them an exorbitant interest rate or threaten to report them unless they pay, that is a fineable offense.
Which is precisely why the law factors in discriminatory behavior with clear examples of discriminatory speech.

That's already illegal and not what this law is addressing. It's about speech and how you say something

[pellius]

Why not ban racial, ethnic, or gay slurs "when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person?"

Because we are a free country. We never wanted the government to control what we say in our private lives like they do in Communist countries. Free speech laws were not designed to protect nice speech. There would be no point in that. It is to protect speech that many consider offensive. We have a right to call you names.

You want to arrest me if I call you phag?

[joswift]

Because we are a free country. We never wanted the government to control what we say in our private lives like they do in Communist countries. Free speech laws were not designed to protect nice speech. There would be no point in that. It is to protect speech that many consider offensive. We have a right to call you names.

You want to arrest me if I call you phag?

you keep contradicting yourself, you say you are in a free country and can say what you like yet you claim companies cant discriminte of they choose to and are all in favour of that??

[Al Doggity]

You're wrong about that. If I am a resident in an apartment building and I believe some new tenants are illegal aliens it is now illegal for me to report it.

And as far as service providers interacting with citizens, so what? If I decide not to hire someone because I think he is an illegal alien because he is unable to prove it. Maybe I don't want to rent to someone because he can't prove he is a citizen.

There are already laws on the books, strict laws, against racial and sexual discrimination.
The kicker here is that now it's not just what you say but what others feel you meant. Now the government are mind readers and have the power to determine your motivations.

No, i'm not wrong and your whole post is off the mark.

First of all, the entire guideline document is here:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf

The portion about "illegals" is on page 14- excerpted:

The use of the terms “illegal alien” and “illegals,” with the intent to demean, humiliate, or
offend a person or persons in the workplace, amounts to unlawful discrimination under
the NYCHRL.

In the workplace. In the workplace. In the workplace. Taken directly from the document.

Nothing about neighbors not being able to report you anywhere in the document because that's not what HRL covers. People call the police over bullshit all day long, so if you actually just applied even a small amount of common sense, you'd realize how wrong you were.

Furthermore, as to your other point about not hiring an undocumented worker, that's also right in the document. It is perfectly legal not to hire someone if they are undocumented, but if you do hire them, you cannot harass them, take advantage of them or abuse them.

[pellius]

and as such racism and homophobia flourishes.

If you are allowed to say you didnt give a job to a gay man then the public would decide how long that business stays open.
If you are not allowed to say it then the homophobic company carries on trading..

It's not that easy to prove. My father was the director of the State Labor Department of Hawaii and an unrepentant liberal and his instinct was always to side with the little guy. He cut a lot of sack and always err on the side of the complainant. But even he admitted how hard it is to make a case against sexual or racial discrimination. You have to have clear evidence. Think how hard that is to get. It's not like in a job interview you're going to be told "get the fuk out of here niggah!" or "Hey phag, go somewhere to look for dicks to suck." And interviewer has a host of candidates to choose from and he is free to pick and choose privately whomever he wants.

There was a case where someone tried to sue because he could prove that he had more and better qualifications than another applicant who got the job. And it was true. But the employer argued that because the job involved a lot of customer and client interaction he chose the one he felt was more personable and charming.

[joswift]

It's not that easy to prove. My father was the director of the State Labor Department of Hawaii and an unrepentant liberal and his instinct was always to side with the little guy. He cut a lot of sack and always err on the side of the complainant. But even he admitted how hard it is to make a case against sexual or racial discrimination. You have to have clear evidence. Think how hard that is to get. It's not like in a job interview you're going to be told "get the fuk out of here niggah!" or "Hey phag, go somewhere to look for dicks to suck." And interviewer has a host of candidates to choose from and he is free to pick and choose privately whomever he wants.

There was a case where someone tried to sue because he could prove that he had more and better qualifications than another applicant who got the job. And it was true. But the employer argued that because the job involved a lot of customer and client interaction he chose the one he felt was more personable and charming.

you missed the point of my post, it was about free speech not discrimination perse...

The only people in todays society who dont have a claim for discrimination are straight white males, everyone else has a legitimate claim..