Logic Lesson Of The Day: The False Analogy

Every so often, when you argue with people, you run across one or another logical fallacy. Some logical fallacies, such as the ad hominem attack, are fairly easy to spot. Others may be more difficult.

One type of fallacy that you see often is the false analogy (or weak analogy). This happens when a person tries to make his/her point by comparing one case to another where there is often an important difference in the two cases.

I ran across this today in a report on Matzav.com. A few months ago, a number of female employees filed suit against B&H photo, claiming discrimination because women were barred from certain sales jobs. The story was revived yesterday when three more female employees joined the suit.

I want to stress that I have no idea if the suit has merit or not. I don't work at B&H, nor do I visit there too often.

As you might expect, when a story such as this comes up, there are those who think that it's wrong that B&H can be sued for gender discrimination. They usually make a point about how it's a private business and that they should be able to hire/fire whomever they like.

One poster on Matzav, who goes by the screen name "hesh" made the following point (emphasis mine):

This lawsuit is outragous! What total nonsense! B&H photo is a private company. What if a man would try to get a job in a shaitel store, dress shop, etc… What about a lady teaching 9th grade gemorah class? Use a bissel sechial. This is total MESIRA!

Putting aside his initial outbursts, the point he's trying to make is this: Firms should be allowed to hire/fire whom they want. If the government interferes with that (via laws against discrimination) then they could force a sheitel store to hire a male employee which, in the frum world, would completely destroy the business (as the married women will not shop there).

In other words, Hesh is making an analogy between B&H and a sheitel store (and a dress shop and a boys' yeshiva).

However, the analogy isn't a good one. In fact, it's a pretty bad one. The reason why it's a bad analogy is because there is an important difference between the cases he brings and B&H.

Hesh is probably correct in his statement that forcing a sheitel shop to hire a man would be incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, it would ruin the business as women would not shop at the store anymore. The same can be said for a dress store. Likewise, in many segments of the frum community, the parents would pull their sons out of school if a woman taught gemara.

However, the same cannot be said about B&H. B&H's business will not be harmed by the presence of female salespeople. The vast majority of the people who shop at B&H care about the price, selection, warranty and the company's great reputation as a photographic equipment store. They don't care about the gender of the person behind the counter.

And that's all the difference. The stores in the examples that Hesh provides have a legitimate business need for a specific gender employee. B&H does not have a specific business need for male-only salespeople. And that's why the analogy fails for Hesh's argument.

The Wolf

So, I Guess Religious Protections In the Workplace are Bad...

VIN has a story about four women who are suing B&H Photo. The women are alleging that they were denied promotion opportunities for "religious reasons."

I don't want to comment on the specifics of the suit because, frankly, I have no idea what went down. I don't know if the suit truly has merit or not.

What I find interesting (and appalling) are some of the comments on the VIN story. There are those who are defending B&H based on rules of tznius. Others maintain that a frum company should be able to hire only Jews. Among the comments:

So a yid who wants to have a business where he can be shomer torah umitzvos can't do it. He must hire women, he must give benefits to gay partners, soon they will claim he discriminates because he doesn't allow the employees to work on Shabes and Yomtov.

let us create business for our people, what's wrong with that, is it too much common sense?

Why is not allowing woman because of religious reasons wrong? we don't discriminate because of "hate" it's because of "moral values".

What I find ironic about all this is that these people would probably be the first ones screaming "discrimination" if they applied for a job and were turned down for "religious reasons." Imagine the (rightful) hue and cry if they were turned down for a job because the owner felt it was "moral" to provide jobs to his fellow Baptists. Or imagine the story that would come about if a MO seforim store owner only provided jobs or promotions to those who were openly Zionist?

I find it just mind-boggling that people can so quickly forget that the laws that protect others from discrimination based on solely religious grounds protect them as well. Everyone loves to tell over the stories about how Jews were hard pressed to keep Shabbos 100 years ago because jobs required them to work on Saturdays. I can't count the number of times I heard stories of Jews who had to find new jobs every week because they would be fired weekly for refusing to show up on Saturday. We've become so "spoiled" by our ability to take off for Yom Tov and leave early on Fridays in the winter and our right to not be discriminated against that we take those freedoms for granted. Perhaps some people need to be reminded that the same laws that protect their ability to maintain both religious practice and the ability to earn a livelihood protect others as well. At the very least the person who made the following comment should be reminded of history.

We don't need anti-discrimination laws, and they have done us far more harm than help. All we need is for the LAW to treat everyone equally, and to leave people alone to do as they please.

Yeah, that's what we need... a throwback to the world where employees have no protection for their religious beliefs at all.

The Wolf