Business
Legislation to verify voter identification falls under the domain of unintentional discrimination because the practices, procedures or tests which do not appear to be discriminatory, adversely impact a protected group of people. There may be some ways and means that may be implemented during the course of the verification which can amount to unintentional discrimination when the policies of governmental agencies tasked to verify voter identification will uncritically reflect prejudicial stereotypes.
My personal ethical perspective on unintentional discrimination refers to the principle of disparate treatment illustrated in the case of Raytheon v. Hernandez, where the Supreme Court disparate impact claim would be analyzed according to the legal standards applied to an impact case rather than a treatment case. Under disparate impact, a facially neutral employment practice may be deemed illegally discriminatory without evidence of the employer’s subjective intent to discriminate that is required in a disparate-treatment case (Moran, 2008, p. 531).
The main difference between puffery and deceptive advertising can be determined by the legality of the promotion and making unlawful marketing claims. Puffery is considered as a legitimate method of promoting a particular product or service even though there is no way to verify the hyperbolic statements objectively. While deceptive advertising occurs when falsely issued statements are being used to market certain goods or items to consumers. This can be illustrated by a statement to promote a car by making it appear that it can take 40 miles per gallon (mpg), when in truth, its capacity is only 35 mpg falls under deceptive advertising.
Upon notice of a deceptive advertising in making decisions in buying products, I use my common sense in weighing the truthfulness of the advertisement of goods and services. If the advertisement is too good to be true, then it is meant to mislead the consumer or merely intended to earn profit.
References
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment Law: New Challenges in the Business Environment, 4th ed.
USA: Prentice Hall.
Raytheon Vs Hernandez, (02-749) 540 U.S. 44 (2003) 298 F.3d 1030
