Your experiences with discrimination

[Alonzo]

I'm sure most of us have felt discriminated against one time or another, even white people. So if you want to tell people about it, why not do it here?

[Buck Laser]

In 1955, I was the only white soldier for about three months in a barracks building otherwise entirely occupied by black soldiers. Every one was civil to me, but I might as well have been invisible. I was never so lonely in my life as I was those three months in Camp Polk, LA. I do recall a couple of good things happening, though. One day I woke up deathly sick--it turned out to be the flu--and a couple of guys helped me get to sick call that day. The other was that the officer I reported to was black, but he was definitely a friend. He picked me up a couple of times when he encountered me on other parts of the base, and was going back to my unit 3 or 4 miles on foot. For those who don't know, President Truman integrated the military in 1948.

Granted, that may not be the worst experience, but I do know something of being invisible to most people.

[4Reaganomics]

Whites in general feel discriminated against due to affirmative action.

[PostmodernProphet]

when I was in high school, the girls I wanted to date discriminated against me......

[Buck Laser]

Whites in general feel discriminated against due to affirmative action.

I consider that to be pure and unadulterated bullshit, 4R. Affirmative Action went in place in the early 70s. I know that because I attended several training sessions on the implementation of Affirmative Action in federally funded programs. One of my responsibilities as a Field Representative in the Office of Economic Opportunity was to monitor Community Action Agencies for compliance with AA requirements. Interestingly enough, I encountered a couple of situations then where white people alleged AA discrimination, and we required some changes. It was simple stuff, like financial management positions where the best candidates happened to be white.

I myself competed from my mid-30s on in an Affirmative Action environment, until the end of my working career in 2000. There were occasions when minority people were chosen over me, but I tend to be one who accepts responsibility for my own life, so I didn't complain. I just knew I'd have to do better next time. And I did.

I know that conservatives and whiners can make AA into a real boogyman, (sorry, Boog) but I take an awful lot of it as excuse-making for their own shortcomings. My generation certainly grew up thinking that we as white males deserved special consideration just because of who we were--the people who got the good jobs.

During my working career, I've worked with and under minority supervisors, and found pretty much exactly the same spread of competence levels among them as among whites. Some were fools, most were good, and one saved my life when I was 60 by pulling a few strings to get me on at a university.

I know it's an uinpopular thing to say, especially among most of the people on DF, but I think AA has been a great success. If any of you thinks you've suffered under it, please look very closely at yourself. Was it AA that kept you from getting that job, or did you just screw up? I know I screwed up a time or two. The difference is that I take total responsibility for my life and for my success or lack thereor.

[Mia]

I felt discriminated against when for a short time I lived in a predominantly hispanic neighborhood. I was 'the gringa' and untrusted :sadly:.

But more so when I dated a man from the ME. Sometimes I found myself wanting to hide it :embarrased:. He is white, looks European, I could play it off if I wanted. For the sake of my character I had to suck it up and say he's from SYRIA, OMG, yes he is a MUSLIM, go ahead shoot me now :grrrr:

[Mia]

Whites in general feel discriminated against due to affirmative action.


I don't. For every job that a minority gets for being a minority, there are at least 10 he was turned down for not being white - it more than evens out, imo.

I'm not for AA at all; there was a time and a place for it which has long passed, imo. But I do not think that whites are actually disadvantaged by it overall.

Although my father says one should be a black female with a Spanish surname, and one could get anything they want, lol! Kind-of true.

[ScareCrow]

I've found some jobs are much harder to get when you are not bi-lingual. I actually got turned down for one job because I couldn't speak Spanish. I personally find it upsetting to have a Hispanic person picked over you for a job because they can speak Spanish.

[Buck Laser]

I've found some jobs are much harder to get when you are not bi-lingual. I actually got turned down for one job because I couldn't speak Spanish. I personally find it upsetting to have a Hispanic person picked over you for a job because they can speak Spanish.

I wouldn't take that as discrimination myself. If bilingual skills are important to a job, then someone truly fluent in two languages shough get the job. I don't blame you for being upset, but your respons should be to improve your own Spanish skills.

I've been in many positions during my working career when I had to let people go because they lacked the basic talent to learn the skills the job required. It was always MUCH more painful to let them go than to fire the people who could do the job, but wouldn't.

Choosing employees with all the regulations that now apply is a difficult job. Yeah, it used to be easier, but that was when most businesses were locally owned and people weren't so mobile. It was also the time when people of color simply weren't considered for most kinds of jobs, and when the idea of a woman in the workplace as anything but a secretary was unheard of. I lived and worked through those days, but I think the new days are better.

[Mia]

I wouldn't take that as discrimination myself. If bilingual skills are important to a job, then someone truly fluent in two languages shough get the job. I don't blame you for being upset, but your respons should be to improve your own Spanish skills.



I agree. In Europe, we expect to find English-speaking people in the hotels, businesses, etc. Being bi-lingual there is a requirement to get the jobs where employees come into contact with English-speaking people; it's no different.

I love French, but chose Spanish to take in HS and College because I thought TX was the center of the Universe and Spanish would be most helpful to know :thumbsup:

[Pookie]

I applied for a position in the corrections system and was told that although I was well-qualified, I was not going to get the position because they needed an African-American female. They hired one, and she quit after less than a month.
Ah, well.
Purrs,
Pookie

[preservanation]

I've found some jobs are much harder to get when you are not bi-lingual. I actually got turned down for one job because I couldn't speak Spanish. I personally find it upsetting to have a Hispanic person picked over you for a job because they can speak Spanish.
My wife has run into this when applying for jobs in her field.

I haven't encountered discrimination, per se, but boy did I encounter a butt-load of racism from blacks growing up in New Haven Ct.
Being a pretty tall guy possessing an inner-city mentality I never backed down and refused to become or appear the victim. Gained respect and friends that way
Problems still would arise when I was out of my neighborhood, and have had plenty of...let's call the "conformations".
I would get the, honky, cracker or pecker-wood...and my all time favorite "Yo, white boy give my your money or bike". Never turned out well.
I never thought about it as racist back then though, but thought of it only as "living in New Haven."

I find more racism is communities where either whites or blacks have limited contact with one other.
The more I think about white racism, it has as much to do with fear as it does guilt.
Whatever it is, not being able to speak freely and only foments stereotypes and resentments. Another example of PC excerbating problems rather than addressing them.

I found very different attitudes between the races in the south than I do in the north.
In the south people are much more upfront about race and I think it's actually better down there.
Small towns in the south might be segregated as well, but up north they are "mentally and emotionally segregated", and IMO that's even more harmful.

A lot of it I chalk it up to political correctness which stifles relationships and debate. If someones an ass they are an ass.
MLK said it best, and you all here know what he said about character and skin color.
I could go on...this is a very important subject to me.

[Go Fish]

When we moved here from The Great White North 26 years ago, my wife was walking from our apartment to the grocery store just a couple blocks away. There was a black boy of about 3 years age playing with a toy truck out in the yard, and my wife stopped and said something to the effect of "How are you? to which the sweet child responded "Fuckin' honkey!" We still laugh about that one from time to time.

[preservanation]

I was thinking about this.
About 15 years ago I was told the reason I wasn't making as much as my co-worker was because he "had kids".
At the time I thought that was incredibly unfair, especially because I IMO was a better employee and never missed work, which he did a lot.
Oh, well. Haven't thought about that in a long time.
Thanks for opening old wounds with this thread!
...dammit.

[Buck Laser]

I was thinking about this.
About 15 years ago I was told the reason I wasn't making as much as my co-worker was because he "had kids".
At the time I thought that was incredibly unfair, especially because I IMO was a better employee and never missed work, which he did a lot.
Oh, well. Haven't thought about that in a long time.
Thanks for opening old wounds with this thread!
...dammit.

That kind of thing was a LOT more prevalent the further back in history you go. When my wife began teaching 50 years ago--I was still in college--there was a published differential in the pay scale for men vs. women teachers. The justification was that men supposedly were the family breadwinners, while women weren't. Of course, my wife was the breadwinner.

Earlier, when I was a kid, my dad's health failed and my mother became the family breadwinner--making significantly less than a man would in he same circumstances. It all seemed so "natural" back then.

Back in the mid 60s, my mother, a widow, decided to try to buy a house, but she was turned down my every lending agent she visited because she didn't have a husband to look after her.

Discrimination has eased, but it's a long way from over. I'm glad we're making progress, however much it may have slowed during this administration.

[sam]

I think short people are DEFINATELY discriminated against. Every grocery store should have a fold out stool at the end of each each aisle so that no one has to reach an item in the back of the top shelf by balancing one foot on the food cart and the other on the food shelf and hoping their sense of balance is accurat enough so that the cart does not move away.

:lmao:

[NDNdancer]

Let's see, where to start.....

When I was 3 and some tourists from a tour bus got off the bus at one of the pull outs in Glacier Park and squeeled "Oh look, Indians!" and proceeded to try to take pictures.

Oh yeah, then there's Kindergarten when the teacher put me in the back of the class "with the other Indians".

My senior year in college, I was taking a 400 level 5 credit biochem course and skipped the first lab. I knew the lab director well and just showed up early to check the lab equipment. The professor walked in while I was getting set up and proceeded to ask me a series of questions. Did I know this was a graduate level biochemistry course, did I have any previous chemistry courses........ duh! My response to him? "I just took this course as an elective for a fun course." He blushed, got flustered and realized what he had implied.

The scariest was traveling alone, at night, through South Dakota and having to pull off for gas in some small town where I was accosted by a bunch of young men whose intent was "to have a little fun with the squaw". The store owner (bless his heart), locked me and him inside and called the cops.

Last week, coming home from Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico and the Customs Agent told me "How" after I explained to him that I had dual citizenship in the US and Canada, but my Nation was Kainah. I raised a brow and he had the grace to turn red and then asked me what I had brought back from Mexico. I told him "trinkets and beads, I'm going to buy back Montana from the white men." He really couldn't do anything else but laugh.

In between, there's a whole lot of ugly stuff. I was raised right though and refused to let any of it bother me. I usually just ask "Who's your mom and why didn't she raise you right?" That usually shuts them up.

[preservanation]

Discrimination has eased, but it's a long way from over. I'm glad we're making progress, however much it may have slowed during this administration. Slowed still implies progress.

[4Reaganomics]

The Bush administration is the most diverse in the history of the United States. I don't understand how this was the cause of a slowdown in progress. I hope that is not what BL is insinuating...

[preservanation]

"Hope" on, 4.
It seems like that is all we have.

[Mia]

I didn't even thing about gender discrimination. I suppose I was born late enough to escape the worst of it. I have experienced it, but I kind-of had a chip on my shoulder too - a 'I'll prove you wrong' mentality, not 'treat me the same because I said so'.

[preservanation]

Let's see, where to start.....

When I was 3 and some tourists from a tour bus got off the bus at one of the pull outs in Glacier Park and squeeled "Oh look, Indians!" and proceeded to try to take pictures.

Oh yeah, then there's Kindergarten when the teacher put me in the back of the class "with the other Indians".

My senior year in college, I was taking a 400 level 5 credit biochem course and skipped the first lab. I knew the lab director well and just showed up early to check the lab equipment. The professor walked in while I was getting set up and proceeded to ask me a series of questions. Did I know this was a graduate level biochemistry course, did I have any previous chemistry courses........ duh! My response to him? "I just took this course as an elective for a fun course." He blushed, got flustered and realized what he had implied.

The scariest was traveling alone, at night, through South Dakota and having to pull off for gas in some small town where I was accosted by a bunch of young men whose intent was "to have a little fun with the squaw". The store owner (bless his heart), locked me and him inside and called the cops.

Last week, coming home from Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico and the Customs Agent told me "How" after I explained to him that I had dual citizenship in the US and Canada, but my Nation was Kainah. I raised a brow and he had the grace to turn red and then asked me what I had brought back from Mexico. I told him "trinkets and beads, I'm going to buy back Montana from the white men." He really couldn't do anything else but laugh.

In between, there's a whole lot of ugly stuff. I was raised right though and refused to let any of it bother me. I usually just ask "Who's your mom and why didn't she raise you right?" That usually shuts them up.
Bless you.
Your post brought tears to my eyes. I'm sorry people are such a holes.
Your maturity, intelligence and self-control is amazing. It shows you are much more comfortable as a human being than those jerks are.
Those who act that way are demonstrating much more about their own insecurities rather than anything about their victims. If they don't change, they will be very unhappy and ill-adjusted people.

[Professor]

Let's see, where to start.....

When I was 3 and some tourists from a tour bus got off the bus at one of the pull outs in Glacier Park and squeeled "Oh look, Indians!" and proceeded to try to take pictures.

Oh yeah, then there's Kindergarten when the teacher put me in the back of the class "with the other Indians".

My senior year in college, I was taking a 400 level 5 credit biochem course and skipped the first lab. I knew the lab director well and just showed up early to check the lab equipment. The professor walked in while I was getting set up and proceeded to ask me a series of questions. Did I know this was a graduate level biochemistry course, did I have any previous chemistry courses........ duh! My response to him? "I just took this course as an elective for a fun course." He blushed, got flustered and realized what he had implied.

The scariest was traveling alone, at night, through South Dakota and having to pull off for gas in some small town where I was accosted by a bunch of young men whose intent was "to have a little fun with the squaw". The store owner (bless his heart), locked me and him inside and called the cops.

Last week, coming home from Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico and the Customs Agent told me "How" after I explained to him that I had dual citizenship in the US and Canada, but my Nation was Kainah. I raised a brow and he had the grace to turn red and then asked me what I had brought back from Mexico. I told him "trinkets and beads, I'm going to buy back Montana from the white men." He really couldn't do anything else but laugh.

In between, there's a whole lot of ugly stuff. I was raised right though and refused to let any of it bother me. I usually just ask "Who's your mom and why didn't she raise you right?" That usually shuts them up.



Wow!! I love how you handle those situations. You do well.

I live in a primarily hispanic neighborhood now, but actually I don't feel discriminated against. Everyone loves each other.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am regularly discriminated against, and prevented from getting jobs legally, because I refuse to submit to invasions of privacy supposedly protected by my government.

I own my body, and I have a right to privacy of my body and its contents.

No company has a RIGHT TO DEMAND random drug testing, without warrant of suspicion. This entire argument of random drug testing is a CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF PRIVACY, and is predicated on the concept of GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

I live in Ohio, and the Ohio Drug-Free Workplace Programs is state assisted and subsidized descrimination, and provides kickbacks from the workers compensation fund to employers who WILLINGLY and VOLUNTARILY agree to disenfranchise their workers, by demanding they random drug test.

STOP THE DISCRIMINATION, and end RANDOM drug testing.

Drug testing can be valid in cases where a worker causes injury to another, and sobriety may play a part.

[micfranklin]

I can't call this an all-out discriminatory experience, but back during Thanksgiving week in 2005 my family took a trip to Cincinnati to see our family. On the way that night we stopped at a Chick-fil-a near what I think was Pittsburgh. We went in, ordered our food, but when we sat down we noticed we were the only black family in there and everyone was white and staring at us for some reason.

[Alonzo]

I am regularly discriminated against, and prevented from getting jobs legally, because I refuse to submit to invasions of privacy supposedly protected by my government.

I own my body, and I have a right to privacy of my body and its contents.

No company has a RIGHT TO DEMAND random drug testing, without warrant of suspicion. This entire argument of random drug testing is a CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF PRIVACY, and is predicated on the concept of GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

I live in Ohio, and the Ohio Drug-Free Workplace Programs is state assisted and subsidized descrimination, and provides kickbacks from the workers compensation fund to employers who WILLINGLY and VOLUNTARILY agree to disenfranchise their workers, by demanding they random drug test.

STOP THE DISCRIMINATION, and end RANDOM drug testing.

Drug testing can be valid in cases where a worker causes injury to another, and sobriety may play a part.


Kind of surprised that you oppose allowing businesses to dictate their own hiring policy. After all if you don't want to do that then don't work for them.

I'm also not sure what's so bad about not wanting to hire drug users and addicts, they're not a reliable group.

But, honestly, I think complaining about drug policies at work, an entirely chosen recreational activity, compared to people being discriminated against for their ethnicity or religion, is far fetched. I think you're going overboard by suggesting that not hiring drug users and discriminating against blacks, muslims, hispanics etc. are even remotely similar.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Kind of surprised that you oppose allowing businesses to dictate their own hiring policy.

I don't as long as its based on volitional choice and respect for individual rights.

This is obviously descrimination against a "lifestyle" that may not in any way affect work performance, since the people may not do drugs, simply refuse to submit. The descrimination is against those who refuse to submit to violations of privacy rights to attain employment.

Alonzo said:
After all if you don't want to do that then don't work for them.

Thats fine, if its an individual business doing it on its own at its own cost. This is state subsidized descrimination, using money from the very people they are discrimnating against, to perform the act of discrimination. Its criminal, and at the hands of the state, so STATEWIDE.

Alonzo said:
I'm also not sure what's so bad about not wanting to hire drug users and addicts, they're not a reliable group.

Thats not only a biased statement, but an unverifiable statement.

Alonzo said:
But, honestly, I think complaining about drug policies at work, an entirely chosen recreational activity, compared to people being discriminated against for their ethnicity or religion, is far fetched. I think you're going overboard by suggesting that not hiring drug users and discriminating against blacks, muslims, hispanics etc. are even remotely similar.

I think you don't understand the constitution, and the role of individual rights.
This is a case of multiple violations against privacy rights, that is STATE subsidized using CITIZEN funds, and it is a blanket discrimination policy because test results MAY play no role in the issue.

You do not have to test dirty to lose your job.... you simply have to refuse to test, regardless of how many good tests you've given in the past, or your prior record.

The state is descriminating against people who refuse to relinquish their right to privacy to employers, on the condition of employment.

[Alonzo]

Alonzo said:
I'm also not sure what's so bad about not wanting to hire drug users and addicts, they're not a reliable group.

Thats not only a biased statement, but an unverifiable statement.

Are you arguing that drug users, as a group, are just as reliable as non drug users? I can argue that if you want, but in another thread, not this one. I just can't believe you'd seriously contest that point.


I think you don't understand the constitution, and the role of individual rights.
This is a case of multiple violations against privacy rights, that is STATE subsidized using CITIZEN funds, and it is a blanket discrimination policy because test results MAY play no role in the issue.

You honestly think that being discriminated for your choices is anything close to being discriminated based on race, ethnicity, religion or orientation?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Are you arguing that drug users, as a group, are just as reliable as non drug users?

I am arguing that all people are individuals, and to judge individuals on a bias you personally hold against a "group" as you perceive, from your own biases, is false on its face.

It is difficult to even get an HONEST idea on who is and is not an illegal drug user, because they are ILLEGAL there is an obvious stigma attached to simply admitting it, no matter HOW responsible you are.

Alonzo said:
I can argue that if you want, but in another thread, not this one. I just can't believe you'd seriously contest that point.

I wouldn't argue it in the point you have "framed", because you prefer the "group bias" perspective, whereas I argue the individual perspective, which is far more accurate.

Saying all drug users are alike is like saying:
All gays are alike....
All guys are alike....
All women are alike....
All blacks are alike....
All whites are alike....
All kids are alike....
All rebels are alike....

Its inherantly flawed, and usually marked by bias and extreme vaguery. If you can't prove the case on individual merits, its obviously flawed.

Alonzo said:
You honestly think that being discriminated for your choices is anything close to being discriminated based on race, ethnicity, religion or orientation?

Obviously.

Religion is a choice. We have a RIGHT to CHOOSE what our faith is, if ANY is chosen at all.

Do you think because it is a choice, we should be subject to discrimination for it?
Do you think jobs and livelihood should depend on it?

[Mia]

I'm not going to argue every point in the drug testing thing, but I'm going to go with Zo on this one - the individual business owners have rights as well about who to hire and who not to based on whatever they want. Drug users are not a protected class.

On one of the other points, I will say this: if nothing else, drug addicts are unreliable because they can't be relied upon to pass drug tests :p

[Alonzo]

I am arguing that all people are individuals, and to judge individuals on a bias you personally hold against a "group" as you perceive, from your own biases, is false on its face.

Again osborn, if you want to argue that drug users, as a group, tend to be much less reliable then I'm more than happy to discuss that, just not in this thread.



I wouldn't argue it in the point you have "framed", because you prefer the "group bias" perspective, whereas I argue the individual perspective, which is far more accurate.

Saying all drug users are alike is like saying:
All gays are alike....
All guys are alike....
All women are alike....
All blacks are alike....
All whites are alike....
All kids are alike....
All rebels are alike....

Its inherantly flawed, and usually marked by bias and extreme vaguery. If you can't prove the case on individual merits, its obviously flawed.

I'm not sure how rebels fit into that group.

But I didn't say "all drug users are alike", that's ridiculous and you know it. But to say that drug use suggests that I'm much more likely to encounter problems with this person if I hire them, then that's true. It's a job related issue, most of the rest aren't.


Obviously.

Religion is a choice. We have a RIGHT to CHOOSE what our faith is, if ANY is chosen at all.

Do you think because it is a choice, we should be subject to discrimination for it?

It is not a choice in the traditional sense. Religion is something core to your very being, it has cultural value, and is a belief system that is entirely independent from your potential to do your job.

Sure you have the legal right to choose but there's little in common between that choice and virtually any other choice you make in your life.

[AnnEsthesia]

Of course, one only has to consider the fact that you have to sign the sheet stating that you agree to be drug tested before they can do so. Any business I have ever heard of around here who has a drug testing policy has it in their employee manual which all new employees read and sign stating that they agree to abide by it.

If you do not want to be randomly drug tested, go work someplace where they will not test you. Don't sit and scream constitutional violation when YOU AGREED TO IT!

[Osborn F. Enready]

I would bet you yourself, just like most, work and live next to responsible drug users every single day of your life once you became an adult.

I've known a lot of drug users at work and they tended to be the worst workers at those places, when you look at tardiness, absences or overall poor performance.

Why should they be judged by anything BESIDES their work performance? That is the REAL question....

Would you accept that all blacks, or all whites should be judged by something other than their individual performance for the position they are applying? If not, then why would you accept drug users should be without a REASON for provoking such discrimination?

Because being a drug user relates to work performance, being black doesn't.

So you are saying if it can't be classified as a "religion", it is not equal?

What if I have no religion?

It's still your religious belief, the belief that there is nothing.

Is not the belief in individual privacy unalienable, equally as valid?

IS not my right to innocence until proven guilty, equally as valid?

Are we all subject to random suspicion without justification? At whos behest?

If someone is an alcoholic, or a drug addict do you think that is something you should be able to discriminate because of?


Its called the choice to respect the rights of others, and expect the respect yours, until HAVING REASON to believe otherwise.

I don't sanction unreasonable suspicion, and I can see no reason why it would be compatible with our form of government, as it claims it is.

I have reason to believe a drug user, particularly one on heroine, cocaine etc., is more likely to miss work, work poorly, and have other issues relating to work. I don't have reasons to believe that for Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Asians etc.

[Osborn F. Enready]

AnnEsthesia said:
Of course, one only has to consider the fact that you have to sign the sheet stating that you agree to be drug tested before they can do so.

I agree, individual business has the right to do that.... but the state has no right to SUBSIDIZE IT with the funds from the very workers they disenfranchise.

AnnEsthesia said:
Any business I have ever heard of around here who has a drug testing policy has it in their employee manual which all new employees read and sign stating that they agree to abide by it.

In OHIO, the STATE subsidizes companies who voluntarily sign up, from workers compensation funds, creating an unequal business enviroment, directly contradictory to their claims of market stability.

AnnEsthesia said:
If you do not want to be randomly drug tested, go work someplace where they will not test you. Don't sit and scream constitutional violation when YOU AGREED TO IT!

I am not sitting, nor screaming. I am standing up and saying exactly what is happening.... state subsidized discrimination against people who refuse to submit their right to privacy, for employment, for livelihood, for happiness, who reside in this state. Creating an unfair business market for companies who refuse to participate in the program. Illegally using funds provided by ALL employers and employees in the state, directly to disenfranchise all who refuse to participate, regardless of work performance.

I don't care what peoples "opinions" are. I am simply stating the facts.

[AnnEsthesia]

Drug use is illegal. You cannot "discriminate" against a criminal act. That is like saying that no one should 'discriminate' against someone who goes out and commits armed robbery.

[AnnEsthesia]

And again, if you do not wish to be drug tested, then don't be. But they have every right to test you and they should. Sorry if your addiction makes it impossible for you to pass a drug test. They have treatments for that.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Ann said:
Drug use is illegal. You cannot "discriminate" against a criminal act.

You could use that argument if you were only testing people who gave you REASON to test. You can't use that as a blanket reason to fire people, and remove their right to bodily privacy.

Ann said:
That is like saying that no one should 'discriminate' against someone who goes out and commits armed robbery.

Totally incorrect.

YOU used an example where someone COMMITTED A CRIME. Do you think people should be forced to surrender their privacy so the government can tell exactly when and if a person committs a crime? Do you respect the right to privacy from UNJUST or UNREASONABLE search or seizure?

Ann said:
And again, if you do not wish to be drug tested, then don't be.

If I refuse, I can be fired, and the state nor a union has any right to step in.

Ann said:
But they have every right to test you and they should.

IF THEY SHOULD?!?

What determines "when they should"? You are totally missing the point.

Ann said:
Sorry if your addiction makes it impossible for you to pass a drug test.

So now, anyone who refuses is a drug user?

Ann said:
They have treatments for that.

Yes, they do, assuming you are a drug user. Do they have a treatment for being an innocent victim of state discrimination?