|
On April 19 2013 02:58 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:50 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 02:37 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 02:14 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:09 SiroKO wrote:
- That the right to have a children is non-existant or at least less important than the right for a children to have a stable traditional and loving family. In other words, since being adopted is already very tough to accept as a child, being adopted by gay parents and possibly ridiculed for that might be a too heavy burden for a child/teenager. This, to me, is actually really interesting. Do you have/know of any sources which can elaborate on this so I can read up on it? Every single reputable thing I can find utterly disproves the notion that adopted children of gays suffer in any way during their childhood. I guess I should elaborate on why I think the way that was phrased is interesting. I've never quite seen it phrased the way that orphans struggle to accept the adoption process as a child and that this period of integration could be exacerbated by being adopted into a gay family. Thus while studies concerning the long term implications on children general come out the same, there may be some short term implications that are not accounted for. Not that I believe this is the case, but I'm interested in the argumentation/evidence behind it. I'm curious though, of what significance are short term implications (so long as they aren't tremendously negative) when the vast majority of long-term studies point to there being no difference and possibly a slight advantage to being adopted by gays? There would have to be something really really bad taking place in those first few years. That's what I'm trying to find out  it's mostly interesting to me because I am an avid debater and issues like this tend to crop up in tournaments from time to time. It's thus useful for me to be versed in the counter-narrative to gay adoption.
Ahh, that makes sense. Same reason I watch Fox News.
And man does TL seems to be full to the brim with current and former debaters. 
|
On April 19 2013 02:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:37 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 02:14 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:09 SiroKO wrote:
- That the right to have a children is non-existant or at least less important than the right for a children to have a stable traditional and loving family. In other words, since being adopted is already very tough to accept as a child, being adopted by gay parents and possibly ridiculed for that might be a too heavy burden for a child/teenager. This, to me, is actually really interesting. Do you have/know of any sources which can elaborate on this so I can read up on it? Every single reputable thing I can find utterly disproves the notion that adopted children of gays suffer in any way during their childhood. I guess I should elaborate on why I think the way that was phrased is interesting. I've never quite seen it phrased the way that orphans struggle to accept the adoption process as a child and that this period of integration could be exacerbated by being adopted into a gay family. Thus while studies concerning the long term implications on children general come out the same, there may be some short term implications that are not accounted for. Not that I believe this is the case, but I'm interested in the argumentation/evidence behind it. I'm curious though, of what significance are short term implications (so long as they aren't tremendously negative) when the vast majority of long-term studies point to there being no difference and possibly a slight advantage to being adopted by gays? There would have to be something really really bad taking place in those first few years.
Sociologist lean left, and the credits are at the west as well.
Using "metastudies" you don't understand of studies you haven't read is scientifically non-pertinent.
Anyway, you have to consider the issue globally and not through the lense of a statistics of statistics of statistically biased people.
Concerning the well-being of the child, it's actually a quite classical argument, and it's frequently used in France by the OAA (~organism authorized for adoption) which accompany the French adopters, notably as an intermediate with the foreign country's child buraucracy.
|
On April 19 2013 03:22 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:50 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 02:37 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 02:14 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:09 SiroKO wrote:
- That the right to have a children is non-existant or at least less important than the right for a children to have a stable traditional and loving family. In other words, since being adopted is already very tough to accept as a child, being adopted by gay parents and possibly ridiculed for that might be a too heavy burden for a child/teenager. This, to me, is actually really interesting. Do you have/know of any sources which can elaborate on this so I can read up on it? Every single reputable thing I can find utterly disproves the notion that adopted children of gays suffer in any way during their childhood. I guess I should elaborate on why I think the way that was phrased is interesting. I've never quite seen it phrased the way that orphans struggle to accept the adoption process as a child and that this period of integration could be exacerbated by being adopted into a gay family. Thus while studies concerning the long term implications on children general come out the same, there may be some short term implications that are not accounted for. Not that I believe this is the case, but I'm interested in the argumentation/evidence behind it. I'm curious though, of what significance are short term implications (so long as they aren't tremendously negative) when the vast majority of long-term studies point to there being no difference and possibly a slight advantage to being adopted by gays? There would have to be something really really bad taking place in those first few years. Sociologist lean left, and the credits are at the west as well. Using "metastudies" you don't understand of studies you haven't read is scientifically non-pertinent. Concerning the well-being of the child, it's actually a quite classical argument, and it's frequently used in France by the OAA (~organism authorized for adoption) which accompany the French adopters, notably as an intermediate with the foreign country's child buraucracy.
And citing one 3000 person survey as evidence of a scientifically justifiable opposition to gay adoption is simply bad science. Here's where I say "clearly you don't understand anything you've referenced", as that seems en vogue if I am to take your post as any indication.
|
One thing thats funny to me about the LGBT rights to adopt is that in the opposition you dont see many (if any) people who themselves where adopted and raised by a LGBT fam.
p.s - i am for both LGBT equality and adoption rights
|
Actually, it *is* your right to go into a business. Where are you coming from insinuating that a business owner doesn't owe anything to the public? Quite the contrary, the courts have held that business owners owe certain degrees of care to people who are on the premises, even trespassers. Business owners also, as I've mentioned multiple times before, have a basic, minimum obligation not to harm public society. It is clear, as I've mentioned before and you've so conveniently ignored, that discrimination can create inferiority complexes in children. Whether or not you continue to insist that "discrimination exists regardless and can't be eliminated" does not mean that children, in today's society, are much less likely to be told "you can't do this because you're black/hispanic/asian/arab/persian/jewish/whatever else." You continue to hold some incorrect notion that property used for residence can be treated in the same manner as property held for business. As pointed out by many, this has never been the case, regardless of discrimination laws.
Your statements about businesses are political philosophy, not law. When you say create inferiority complexes in children, it's 'clear', to....you. Plenty of children grew up being viciously persecuted but because of their value systems or otherwise, overcame it. Jews and Mennonites come to find, and certainly there are many others. It's false that being persecuted means you are destined to a life of perpetual victim-hood. Unless you have some kind of specific evidence, which most certainly you do not. And yes, a business can throw you out if they want generally, although it varies by state. If the manager wants you to leave, you have to leave, with the help of security if necessary.
It sounds like you hold the belief that you can only go as far as your circumstances might predict, and you assume failure if there are perceived obstacles. That's unfortunate. We don't resolve that here. I see things through a different philosophy which is that life is unfair sometimes but nobody gets as perfect life and you can still accomplish a lot. I suspect our trajectories in life will reflect those varying beliefs.
The reason for the attack on your credibility is because one needs to keep a realistic view in a debate. When one goes to an extreme end of the spectrum such as you, basically ignoring all historical evidence for a theoretical premise that could never, ever hold true in today's society, it becomes ridiculous. Call that another baseless attack, if you will, but the comment on "only taking econ 101" was not groundless. Econ 101 (or any Intro to Econ Course) explains all the theories behind the free market maximizing benefits to society, etc. and how capitalism and free trade always ends up with a better result. Almost every single econ class you will take beyond Econ 101 are "why the free market is actually broken in these cases, all the reasons why government intervention is necessary and why the free market is completely broken due to barriers in society." Of course, the classes still hold the premise "less regulation is better" and "the absolute minimum amount of regulation to simply keep the free market on course" is best, but the type of theories you advocating are very, very basic. And quite harmful.
That's great but contains no actual point beyond hoping that by saying 'that's crazy' loudly enough, it will materialize a substantial argument.
Much of what you advocate is that "discrimination reduces business opportunities" and "people would simply find better employers" have not held true in the past. Discrimination was ever so prevalent and in many cases did not by any means put those who discriminated at a disadvantage. If a market is saturated, public views do not view discrimination as a bad thing because it is ingrained in society, it is an "employers market", there are barriers to entry, or really any sort of market failure, your entire theory breaks down. And those all exist. I mean, you go off saying "no one would ever work for an employer that could fire you for any reason" when the largest economy in the United States (California) has at will employment! You state that the laws have made discrimination worse when the country has arguably gone through one of the most progressive generation shifts since its founding, a society where discrimination is openly frowned upon by peers when even our grandparents possibly were the ones actively *doing* the discrimination! I mean, we have a President who's partially black, a person who would have had to sit at the back of the bus when he was extremely young! Quite frankly, none of what you are saying is reflected in society today or has been shown in history.
Actually it has, as black people and various other people have been accepted in other nations without civil rights movements. This is in the category of 'life exists outside America' which I realize can be troubling for some Americans to understand. I'm hoping you're not one of them.
You have offered nothing to support your claims of 'if we didn't have laws, it wouldn't have happened'. You need control groups to make statements like that, otherwise it's just A then B, there A caused B.
TLDR:
1. You're wrong about rights concerning businesses and you're for some reason mixing up residential property rights and business property rights, which are not the same. Businesses by their very nature have an obligation to society.
2. You're ignoring the harmful effects of de jure discrimination on children. People also owe a greater degree of care to children.
3. Your arguments about freedom rely almost entirely upon free market theory without any barriers, which history has shown does not end up happening.
4. Your assumption of increased productiveness is flawed because it does not account for lack of stability, which most economic theory shows is harmful to society.
5. Your claim that discrimination is as prevalent as ever is downright crazy when we are living in one of the most progressive eras ever. The reference to the ACLU has little to no relevance.
6. History has shown that "loss of business" is not an effective enough deterrent. Many people will also rally around the discrimination which can counter the effect (ie. see people rallying around Chick-Fil-a for simply their beliefs on gay marriage, and they aren't even actively discriminating).
7. Your claim no one would work for an employer that could simply fire you for no reason is ridiculous when almost the entire country is "at will" employment. Even more evidence all you're speaking from is theory without much actual evidence to back up what you're saying.
Most of the rest of this is just repeating yourself. 1-3 you have no precedent to support, mostly just assumptions which although potentially reasonable, can also easily to attribute to other confounding factors. Ex. poor people have more trouble with self-image (documented), and blacks are poorer (documented). 4 assumes I would want an absence of government Somalia, which is a straw man. 5 - just ask the ACLU how prevalent discrimination is. 6 - loss of business is very obviously a large deterrent for any business, that's why whenever something comes up in the media they usually scramble to rescue their public image. 7 - I live in Canada.
Sure, if you can find one. The vast, vast majority of companies still have employment contracts that contain "at will employment" wording. You'd be hard pressed to find any employer that does not have this. I've had 6 jobs in CA before, all have had such wording, whether it was an arcade/fast food/grocery store (worked at all in high school), a valet service (college), local CPA firm (college), or a Fortune 100 company (post-college). Even with CA (specifically Silicon Valley) being home to many tech opportunities, it still makes up a very tiny minority of overall employment in the state.
These are also upper-tier jobs. Keep in mind the vast majority of the population will not get jobs with nice severance packages, etc. While you can make the argument "don't be one of those people" it is clear that we *need* blue-collar workers for a functioning society. If it's needed, then they need to be protected, even if at only a limited extent.
Understood but you're not required to sign such a contract. You do if you want the job under their terms. If it was legal, and a company could fire for being black for example, the insta-boycott of any company that would do that would be so fast your head would spin. Totally not worth it. They just accomplish it in other, less public ways now.
|
On April 18 2013 22:33 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 22:21 McBengt wrote:On April 18 2013 17:49 corumjhaelen wrote:
Congrats to New Zealand !
The law to authorize gay marriage in France is going through its second, and most likely last vote at the Assemblée Nationale. The tension is huge, and there are huge manifestations... I'm not proud at all of my country :/ France has a long and proud history of civil rights. I'm confident you guys will do the right thing. The fact is that the ratio of gay marriage supporter in France has been shrinking when the adoption, assisted procreation (which French people massively oppose) and other issues got raised. At the start of the debate, over 60% were pro gay marriage, now it's around 50%. Thus the socialist parlementary group has decided to speed up the usual legislative procedure which creates gigantic tensions. At this point, if there was a referundum in France, I'm convinced the "no" would win.
Declaring that the speeding up of the legislative procedure (which is as I understand it a choice of the government, not of the socialist group) created the tension is incredibly biased, the tension was there way before, and was clearly created by the opposition. That being said it did give a pretext to one of the most brilliant declaration I've ever heard "You are murdering children", from an UMP representative (http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/04/18/mariage-gay-un-depute-ump-accuse-le-ps-d-assassiner-des-enfants_3161995_3224.html). Disgraceful.
That being said I did think that the use of the speed up procedure was dumb, mostly because the PS opposed the method when it was the opposition... How fast can one mind change, I wonder...
|
Hello, so, I realise this isn't really the place to ask this (not the right forum, not the right thread) but I don't really have anywhere else to turn to, at this point, and I'm in a bit of a panic.
I'm a mtf trans girl, I've been on HRT for 8 and a half months now, and just had some blood test results back. My GP is clueless about trans health and hormone stuff, and having asked, he doesn't know what to suggest. I see a doctor in London (Curtis) every 3 months or so, and my next appointment is in a few weeks, but as anyone who has seen him may know, he doesn't really fill you with all that much confidence, plus my appointment is still a few weeks away, and I really want to get this fixed sooner rather than later.
Okay, so, my serum oestradiol level was at 351 pmol/L
According to wikipedia (I know, I know) the optimal range is 400-800 pg/ml and according to a medscape the ideal is around 200 pg/ml
I believe the molar mass of oestradiol is 272.38, which converts my 351 pmol/L to 95605.38 pg/L, or around 95 pg/mL
Which is between 2 and 8 times lower than the ideal, depending on who you believe? Either way, it's low. I'm on 4mg estrogen and 200mg spiro per day. I used to be on 6mg and 300mg, which is like, 50% higher, but the blood test i got back then put me at ~1400 pmol/L which is like 4-5 times higher. I've started smoking a little between then, so I'm not sure if that is causing anything.
I can't really talk about this on trans forums since they refuse to discuss dosages etc, so I just wondered if... you know... anyone knew anything about hormone levels etc that could advise?
xx
|
On April 19 2013 20:40 Misaka wrote:
Hello, so, I realise this isn't really the place to ask this (not the right forum, not the right thread) but I don't really have anywhere else to turn to, at this point, and I'm in a bit of a panic.
I'm a mtf trans girl, I've been on HRT for 8 and a half months now, and just had some blood test results back. My GP is clueless about trans health and hormone stuff, and having asked, he doesn't know what to suggest. I see a doctor in London (Curtis) every 3 months or so, and my next appointment is in a few weeks, but as anyone who has seen him may know, he doesn't really fill you with all that much confidence, plus my appointment is still a few weeks away, and I really want to get this fixed sooner rather than later.
Okay, so, my serum oestradiol level was at 351 pmol/L
According to wikipedia (I know, I know) the optimal range is 400-800 pg/ml and according to a medscape the ideal is around 200 pg/ml
I believe the molar mass of oestradiol is 272.38, which converts my 351 pmol/L to 95605.38 pg/L, or around 95 pg/mL
Which is between 2 and 8 times lower than the ideal, depending on who you believe? Either way, it's low. I'm on 4mg estrogen and 200mg spiro per day. I used to be on 6mg and 300mg, which is like, 50% higher, but the blood test i got back then put me at ~1400 pmol/L which is like 4-5 times higher. I've started smoking a little between then, so I'm not sure if that is causing anything.
I can't really talk about this on trans forums since they refuse to discuss dosages etc, so I just wondered if... you know... anyone knew anything about hormone levels etc that could advise?
xx
I won't make any promises, but my aunt is a doctor and might know something about this. I could ask, but I would need to use the information in your post. Is that ok with you?
|
On April 19 2013 20:40 Misaka wrote:
Hello, so, I realise this isn't really the place to ask this (not the right forum, not the right thread) but I don't really have anywhere else to turn to, at this point, and I'm in a bit of a panic.
I'm a mtf trans girl, I've been on HRT for 8 and a half months now, and just had some blood test results back. My GP is clueless about trans health and hormone stuff, and having asked, he doesn't know what to suggest. I see a doctor in London (Curtis) every 3 months or so, and my next appointment is in a few weeks, but as anyone who has seen him may know, he doesn't really fill you with all that much confidence, plus my appointment is still a few weeks away, and I really want to get this fixed sooner rather than later.
Okay, so, my serum oestradiol level was at 351 pmol/L
According to wikipedia (I know, I know) the optimal range is 400-800 pg/ml and according to a medscape the ideal is around 200 pg/ml
I believe the molar mass of oestradiol is 272.38, which converts my 351 pmol/L to 95605.38 pg/L, or around 95 pg/mL
Which is between 2 and 8 times lower than the ideal, depending on who you believe? Either way, it's low. I'm on 4mg estrogen and 200mg spiro per day. I used to be on 6mg and 300mg, which is like, 50% higher, but the blood test i got back then put me at ~1400 pmol/L which is like 4-5 times higher. I've started smoking a little between then, so I'm not sure if that is causing anything.
I can't really talk about this on trans forums since they refuse to discuss dosages etc, so I just wondered if... you know... anyone knew anything about hormone levels etc that could advise?
xx
Most trans forums are terrible for advice like this because they are highly concerned about protecting themselves from getting in trouble. Try: http://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender You are likely to get some pretty good feedback there.
Also, stop smoking. It increases your chances of blood clots and is overall more harmful to you than most because of the medications you are taking.
|
On April 20 2013 08:07 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 20:40 Misaka wrote:
Hello, so, I realise this isn't really the place to ask this (not the right forum, not the right thread) but I don't really have anywhere else to turn to, at this point, and I'm in a bit of a panic.
I'm a mtf trans girl, I've been on HRT for 8 and a half months now, and just had some blood test results back. My GP is clueless about trans health and hormone stuff, and having asked, he doesn't know what to suggest. I see a doctor in London (Curtis) every 3 months or so, and my next appointment is in a few weeks, but as anyone who has seen him may know, he doesn't really fill you with all that much confidence, plus my appointment is still a few weeks away, and I really want to get this fixed sooner rather than later.
Okay, so, my serum oestradiol level was at 351 pmol/L
According to wikipedia (I know, I know) the optimal range is 400-800 pg/ml and according to a medscape the ideal is around 200 pg/ml
I believe the molar mass of oestradiol is 272.38, which converts my 351 pmol/L to 95605.38 pg/L, or around 95 pg/mL
Which is between 2 and 8 times lower than the ideal, depending on who you believe? Either way, it's low. I'm on 4mg estrogen and 200mg spiro per day. I used to be on 6mg and 300mg, which is like, 50% higher, but the blood test i got back then put me at ~1400 pmol/L which is like 4-5 times higher. I've started smoking a little between then, so I'm not sure if that is causing anything.
I can't really talk about this on trans forums since they refuse to discuss dosages etc, so I just wondered if... you know... anyone knew anything about hormone levels etc that could advise?
xx I won't make any promises, but my aunt is a doctor and might know something about this. I could ask, but I would need to use the information in your post. Is that ok with you?
That would be great, if you could! I've spoken to a couple of people since who have set my mind at ease a little bit, but if someone medically trained could help, that would be great <3
xx
|
Finally done, the law in favor of homosexual marriage has been adopted in France. Now all that is left is the constiutionnal council, which won't be a problem and the first gay marriage should be celebrated in June.
I'm very happy
|
On April 24 2013 00:11 corumjhaelen wrote:Finally done, the law in favor of homosexual marriage has been adopted in France. Now all that is left is the constiutionnal council, which won't be a problem and the first gay marriage should be celebrated in June. I'm very happy
I told you, I had faith in France all along. Well done.
And Misaka, I'm going to see my aunt in about a week for a party, I'll bring your info and let her take a look.
|
On April 24 2013 00:11 corumjhaelen wrote:Finally done, the law in favor of homosexual marriage has been adopted in France. Now all that is left is the constiutionnal council, which won't be a problem and the first gay marriage should be celebrated in June. I'm very happy
Adding a source to this post
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22261494
Living in the US, I'm very happy to see gay marriage passing in other countries. Maybe once it's accepted in a lot of other major countries, we'll finally pass it as a country and not as select, individual states.
|
On April 19 2013 02:37 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 02:14 Plexa wrote:On April 19 2013 02:09 SiroKO wrote:
- That the right to have a children is non-existant or at least less important than the right for a children to have a stable traditional and loving family. In other words, since being adopted is already very tough to accept as a child, being adopted by gay parents and possibly ridiculed for that might be a too heavy burden for a child/teenager. This, to me, is actually really interesting. Do you have/know of any sources which can elaborate on this so I can read up on it? Every single reputable thing I can find utterly disproves the notion that adopted children of gays suffer in any way during their childhood. I guess I should elaborate on why I think the way that was phrased is interesting. I've never quite seen it phrased the way that orphans struggle to accept the adoption process as a child and that this period of integration could be exacerbated by being adopted into a gay family. Thus while studies concerning the long term implications on children general come out the same, there may be some short term implications that are not accounted for. Not that I believe this is the case, but I'm interested in the argumentation/evidence behind it.
(sorry if this is a late response) It's also circular: because there is discrimination of gays, the children might be discriminated against, which is an argument against ending the legal discrimination.
|
France parliament just voted to legalize same sex marriage.
that's a big win!
|
On April 24 2013 01:57 crazyweasel wrote:
France parliament just voted to legalize same sex marriage.
that's a big win!
I'm thrilled that people are gaining their well deserved rights! Go France! Now, can America catch up?
EDIT: It baffles me to hear people complain about freaking BATHROOMS when the most fundamental rights of human beings are being denied here in the US.
|
On April 24 2013 03:54 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 01:57 crazyweasel wrote:
France parliament just voted to legalize same sex marriage.
that's a big win! I'm thrilled that people are gaining their well deserved rights! Go France! Now, can America catch up? EDIT: It baffles me to hear people complain about freaking BATHROOMS when the most fundamental rights of human beings are being denied here in the US.
Ummm, what are these most fundamental rights being denied to LBGT in the US except for marriage which is definitely denied in a large number of states.
It's one thing to say that marriage is a fundamental right and it is being denied, it's another to say that "the most [multiple] fundamental rights are being denied here in the US." Are LBGT not allowed to vote or speak and associate freely or something?
|
On April 24 2013 04:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 03:54 ayaz2810 wrote:On April 24 2013 01:57 crazyweasel wrote:
France parliament just voted to legalize same sex marriage.
that's a big win! I'm thrilled that people are gaining their well deserved rights! Go France! Now, can America catch up? EDIT: It baffles me to hear people complain about freaking BATHROOMS when the most fundamental rights of human beings are being denied here in the US. Ummm, what are these most fundamental rights being denied to LBGT in the US except for marriage which is definitely denied in a large number of states. It's one thing to say that marriage is a fundamental right and it is being denied, it's another to say that "the most [multiple] fundamental rights are being denied here in the US." Are LBGT not allowed to vote or speak and associate freely or something?
In 29 states, it is legal for an employer to fire someone for being gay.
|
Very happy to hear about France's new legislation.
|
On April 24 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 24 2013 03:54 ayaz2810 wrote:On April 24 2013 01:57 crazyweasel wrote:
France parliament just voted to legalize same sex marriage.
that's a big win! I'm thrilled that people are gaining their well deserved rights! Go France! Now, can America catch up? EDIT: It baffles me to hear people complain about freaking BATHROOMS when the most fundamental rights of human beings are being denied here in the US. Ummm, what are these most fundamental rights being denied to LBGT in the US except for marriage which is definitely denied in a large number of states. It's one thing to say that marriage is a fundamental right and it is being denied, it's another to say that "the most [multiple] fundamental rights are being denied here in the US." Are LBGT not allowed to vote or speak and associate freely or something? In 29 states, it is legal for an employer to fire someone for being gay.
Employment isn't a fundamental right now is it.
And employers can fire you for whatever reason they want and say that it's for a different reason or not even have to give a reason, if you're working an "at-will" job. So really, it's legal in all 50 states to fire someone for being gay, or because you didn't like the look in their eyes this morning, or because whatever. Perhaps at-will jobs are denying people their fundamental right to not be fired because the boss simply doesn't like the cut of their jib or something, seems a bit silly to me to get all huffy over it but what're you gonna do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
