Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
You're god damn right. Few people believe that if an employee is not performing their job satisfactorily the government should be allowed to say "Hey, you can't fire them employer!". That would obviously be absurd.
But it would be ridiculous for someone to be allowed to say "oh hey, you just came out of the closet? Well, despite the fact that you perform you job competently, you get to hit the road because I hate fags! Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job, you're gay!".
Again, just because there are some absurd hypothetical instances where the government might restrict the freedom of employers to fire employees that the government isn't wrong to restrict those freedoms in other scenarios.
Yes it would be ridiculous for someone to do that to their employee. And it would be a mean thing to do. But people should be free to act for themselves and not be controlled overly by government. Government taking over your decisions of who to fire and hire to make sure you are not mean is too much encroachment.
It would also be terribly mean and ridiculous if some business bought out another one and then closed their factories down and said "Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job" as you put it. Freedom allows people to do some mean things to eachother but its so important to protect it just as it is important to protect the free speech of groups that we disagree with or hate, or who say things we hate.
Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
You're god damn right. Few people believe that if an employee is not performing their job satisfactorily the government should be allowed to say "Hey, you can't fire them employer!". That would obviously be absurd.
But it would be ridiculous for someone to be allowed to say "oh hey, you just came out of the closet? Well, despite the fact that you perform you job competently, you get to hit the road because I hate fags! Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job, you're gay!".
Again, just because there are some absurd hypothetical instances where the government might restrict the freedom of employers to fire employees that the government isn't wrong to restrict those freedoms in other scenarios.
Yes it would be ridiculous for someone to do that to their employee. And it would be a mean thing to do. But people should be free to act for themselves and not be controlled overly by government. Government taking over your decisions of who to fire and hire to make sure you are not mean is too much encroachment.
It would also be terribly mean and ridiculous if some business bought out another one and then closed their factories down and said "Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job" as you put it. Freedom allows people to do some mean things to eachother but its so important to protect it just as it is important to protect the free speech of groups that we disagree with or hate, or who say things we hate.
This is [still] a contractual obligations thing, man. Government enforces contracts. If you don't have a contract, the government doesn't act. Employment is a contract.
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
EDIT: Could it also be illegal for someone to choose who he talks to and spends time with? I think there should be strict anti-discriminatory laws for public employees but private people should be able to hire and fire for any reason since it is their money.
Everywhere in the U.S. has At Will employment with certain exceptions for protected classes. You are arguing that that protection shouldn't even exist. Well, that's a terrible opinion. The government should force people not to discriminate is such vital issues as employment on the basis of things like race or gender or sexuality. People need jobs in order to make a living, they aren't some luxury. Yes, you should need a better reason to fire someone than "I hate niggers." Is that really so crazy to you? I mean, do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?
I would favor a Civil Rights Act that applied all the same statutes to public employees only.
Here are some words from Ron Paul that I think should be brought in: (bolding is original to him)
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676. source
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
You're god damn right. Few people believe that if an employee is not performing their job satisfactorily the government should be allowed to say "Hey, you can't fire them employer!". That would obviously be absurd.
But it would be ridiculous for someone to be allowed to say "oh hey, you just came out of the closet? Well, despite the fact that you perform you job competently, you get to hit the road because I hate fags! Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job, you're gay!".
Again, just because there are some absurd hypothetical instances where the government might restrict the freedom of employers to fire employees that the government isn't wrong to restrict those freedoms in other scenarios.
Yes it would be ridiculous for someone to do that to their employee. And it would be a mean thing to do. But people should be free to act for themselves and not be controlled overly by government. Government taking over your decisions of who to fire and hire to make sure you are not mean is too much encroachment.
It would also be terribly mean and ridiculous if some business bought out another one and then closed their factories down and said "Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job" as you put it. Freedom allows people to do some mean things to eachother but its so important to protect it just as it is important to protect the free speech of groups that we disagree with or hate, or who say things we hate.
This is [still] a contractual obligations thing, man. Government enforces contracts. If you don't have a contract, the government doesn't act. Employment is a contract.
You are right that the law views employment as a contract, but you need to be careful about what terms are implied in that contract. Very few are for basic at will employment.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
Another, more well known one:
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
None of those qualify as personality conflicts. Those are all protected classes under the law and employment actions can't be made based upon those classes. In contrast, a boss is free to fire his employee because he thinks his employee just rubs him the wrong way for reasons unrelated to any protected classification.
On September 04 2012 07:39 Chocolate wrote: [quote] Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Referencing the law that Gingrich criticized him for voting against? In that case, I commented before that there were a few things piggybacking on with that law to make it unappealing.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
You're god damn right. Few people believe that if an employee is not performing their job satisfactorily the government should be allowed to say "Hey, you can't fire them employer!". That would obviously be absurd.
But it would be ridiculous for someone to be allowed to say "oh hey, you just came out of the closet? Well, despite the fact that you perform you job competently, you get to hit the road because I hate fags! Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job, you're gay!".
Again, just because there are some absurd hypothetical instances where the government might restrict the freedom of employers to fire employees that the government isn't wrong to restrict those freedoms in other scenarios.
Yes it would be ridiculous for someone to do that to their employee. And it would be a mean thing to do. But people should be free to act for themselves and not be controlled overly by government. Government taking over your decisions of who to fire and hire to make sure you are not mean is too much encroachment.
It would also be terribly mean and ridiculous if some business bought out another one and then closed their factories down and said "Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job" as you put it. Freedom allows people to do some mean things to eachother but its so important to protect it just as it is important to protect the free speech of groups that we disagree with or hate, or who say things we hate.
This is [still] a contractual obligations thing, man. Government enforces contracts. If you don't have a contract, the government doesn't act. Employment is a contract.
So are you saying you agree with me? If the contract doesn't specifically state that you can't be fired for some particular reason, than you CAN be fired right?
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
None of those qualify as personality conflicts. Those are all protected classes under the law and employment actions can't be made based upon those classes. In contrast, a boss is free to fire his employee because he thinks his employee just rubs him the wrong way for reasons unrelated to any protected classification.
Savio is arguing against these protections, I think...?
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
Or a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a short person, or a blonde, or a fat person or a...
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
Hmm... I guess inherent traits? Phenotypes? I mean things like being one ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or another. personality traits might be the wrong term.
Edit: I guess that classification thing you're mentioning. Employment law is by no means my forte.
Its crazy that Americans "cling" to their freedoms like being able to hire/fire someone in a private business setting without having to ask government if your reasons are "acceptable" to the gov't.
Yes, because "Americans" obviously all share your exact opinion regarding employee rights.
Like the right to force someone to not be able to stop paying you their own money? Unless the gov't deems it an "acceptable" reason to stop paying?
You're god damn right. Few people believe that if an employee is not performing their job satisfactorily the government should be allowed to say "Hey, you can't fire them employer!". That would obviously be absurd.
But it would be ridiculous for someone to be allowed to say "oh hey, you just came out of the closet? Well, despite the fact that you perform you job competently, you get to hit the road because I hate fags! Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job, you're gay!".
Again, just because there are some absurd hypothetical instances where the government might restrict the freedom of employers to fire employees that the government isn't wrong to restrict those freedoms in other scenarios.
Yes it would be ridiculous for someone to do that to their employee. And it would be a mean thing to do. But people should be free to act for themselves and not be controlled overly by government. Government taking over your decisions of who to fire and hire to make sure you are not mean is too much encroachment.
It would also be terribly mean and ridiculous if some business bought out another one and then closed their factories down and said "Fuck job security, fuck your mortgage, fuck your family, fuck your health and everything you rely on that needs a job" as you put it. Freedom allows people to do some mean things to eachother but its so important to protect it just as it is important to protect the free speech of groups that we disagree with or hate, or who say things we hate.
This is [still] a contractual obligations thing, man. Government enforces contracts. If you don't have a contract, the government doesn't act. Employment is a contract.
So are you saying you agree with me? If the contract doesn't specifically state that you can't be fired for some particular reason, than you CAN be fired right?
If you are in an at will state, the answer is yes, you can pretty much be fired for good reasons, bad reasons, and no reason at all. There would only be a few, rather limited exceptions under the law.
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
None of those qualify as personality conflicts. Those are all protected classes under the law and employment actions can't be made based upon those classes. In contrast, a boss is free to fire his employee because he thinks his employee just rubs him the wrong way for reasons unrelated to any protected classification.
I think TheFrankOne was referring to gays when he meant 'personality traits'. It's the discussion we were having, anyway.
EPT
