A perverted campaign against LGBT rights in Houston
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
I don't think you're putting much thought into this at all. Name an epoch of history where business operated free of state regulators. You long for a fantasy that never existed. Not only are your theories internally inconsistent and contradictory, they are also build on a foundation of sand.
when the caveman had to go out and kill the animal and cook the meat and take it back to the woman {or the other caveman for your purposes} to get some action, and he was free to do it, the oldest profession in history!!
I imagine this is when mankind discovered women like smell good flowers and such. he drug the animal across some plants by accident, brought it home and she was interested in the flowers. he was interested in "the flower" too, if you catch my drift.
Adorable. Even tribal societies regulate their hunting grounds. The moment civilization takes hold, regulations become inherently necessary to resolve disputes. The alternative to regulations is war. There can be no peace without rules.
Interesting take on rules.
We have a lot rules now but peace seems to not have followed. It seems the more rules we go for the more unrest we have.
For the first 100 years of our nation's existence, the Commerce Clause dealt almost exclusively with prohibiting states from interfering with free trade. Using that to regulate actual businesses didn't happen until relatively modern times.
Hell, even Gibbons was directed at the state, not the shipping company that the state wanted to make a monopoly.
Seriously? Obama has created so many rules of engagement on our forces that they have to request permission to take a dump.
This is a conversation about civil rights, so you're a little off point. But your point that political correctness is useful is fair and I support it to deal with numerous issues outside of the law.
A little explanation.
In 1964, Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They were granted with broad civil law-enforcement authority to investigate and litigate illegal discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Originally, they were charged with being "gatekeepers" and only allowing cases that have merit access to the courts. In really juicy cases, the EEOC will sue on the behalf of the victims. But cases deemed frivolous were dismissed with no right to sue.
That has changed in recent years. They no longer act as gatekeepers unless the charge fails to state a violation of anti-discrimination law. A ham sandwich gets the right to sue now days.
So what's the point? In my experience, the EEOC takes about a year to investigate a charge. If they're not going to dismiss anything, what's their purpose? Just disband this useless agency and throw open the doors to the courts like what happens with wage and hour laws.
So, to summarize, regulatory agencies are unnecessary. Use their budgets to build more courthouses and hire more judges.
That's not right either. Educate yourself. It used to be at our founding that it was very difficult to incorporate and corporations were for a public good and were bared from interfering with elections. You are spouting nonsense in this thread.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Yes, that website looks to be a totally unbiased source of "history," lol.
Got anything from HuffPo to back it up?
Nobody "morally equivalated" it. You were pointing out something illegal in Colorado, so did I. Wasn't that the game?
Man, this thread got out of hand since I left last night. Tradition is all over the place.
I want to back up a bit Tradition: How are employers and employees similarly situated in order to violate your "Equal treatment" law?
I want to back up a bit Tradition: How are employers and employees similarly situated in order to violate your "Equal treatment" law?
I don't have to. I know that states controlled incorporation until FDR got his fingers into it.
Besides, we were talking business ownership. Incorporation is just one of many ways a business can be owned and organized.
In a thread about local Texas discrimination laws you are focused on federal laws? Seems legit.
*sigh*
Now you're requiring me to repeat myself. Employers have the right to fire; employees have the right to quit. How is that not equal?
And since both parties have the right to terminate the employment relationship whenever they want for whatever reason (not prohibited by law), then how are they not similarly-situated?
And since some reasons for termination are prohibited by law, why is only one side of the employment arena protected? Either you're against discrimination or you're not. How can you only be against it if one side does it, but not the other?
It doesn't even support your claim.
Your claim was: Unless the club has no members, then they're obviously getting members from "the public" and therefore, the "private" veil could be pierced.
As in, unless your "private club" only has private members it isn't private, which is absurd, everyone comes from the public at some point.
Yeah, and municipal laws are the worst. You can't discriminate against gays in Houston, but you can discriminate in the workplace that's right across the city line? That's ridiculous.
You didn't read the story, did you? Private clubs have lost this argument before. It was just a matter of time before such a suit against Augusta National landed on the right judge's bench.
First, I was responding to your philosophical post on the necessity of rules. So if I'm drifting off topic I did so only to respond to your post. Second, etiquette and manners are rooted in the golden rule; PC is malignant thought control. I believe in treating people fairly and with respect - I don't need a handbook.
Do I really need to insert a facepalm here, you are ignoring the first step.
How are they similarly situated? You can't start with "isn't that equal" and try to derive a situation from it. The burden is to prove the situated, not to disprove it.
But, since you seem incapable, the courts don't believe they are similarly situated, nor does common sense. One party hires/fires employees to do X, whether it goods, services, whatever. The other party is a potential employee, who has the choice to work/not work for that person. (we get it, that is where your complaint is) We have a specific Constitutional provision against indentured servitude, therefore one cannot be forced to work against his well, therefore no employment contract can contain such, no law can enforce it, etc. There is one thing similar, the employer. The employer stays the same between hiring/firing and each employee that attempts to work there. But that is it. Nothing else is similar.
Many do need a handbook so we best write one. PC is the golden rule too. If you believe in treating others with respect and civility and as they want to be treated, then you must support political correctness. If you don't, you aren't really respectful at all. You are insisting on your needs and desires first, even if it's rude or hurtful to others.
Oh, so surely you have an article (this one wasn't) that supports your theory that this is why Augusta did it.....right? I mean, that was your claim.
Seriously, how is that ridiculous? Is it also ridiculous that you can drive 55 on Hickman in Waukee, but a few blocks north you have to drive 35 in Urbandale? Are you kidding?
You're all over the place and babbling nonsense. An employment arrangement is mutually agreed upon. The employer has the right to hire someone else, and the employee has the right to work for someone else. No one has more power than the other.
Now, no one suggested indentured servitude. What I suggested was, if you try to hire someone away, and you have proof that the applicant turned you down because of some sort of protected class, then that applicant should be considered to have engaged in illegal employment discrimination, and forced to pay damages, which may or may not include accepting the job after all.
I wanted to hit this ignorant strawman statement specifically. This is the same bullshit that is trotted out against all sorts of things.
Discrimination takes place all of the time, in many different ways, and most of the time people (you know, the things running government) don't care. Like education, experience, etc. Much of "discrimination" is perfectly acceptable. How we choose our elected officials involves discrimination, so what?
It is about invidious discrimination...just like all other laws. It isn't driving that is the problem, it is driving at too high a speed. "But you should want to stop all driving!" No, society wants to stop driving it believes to be dangerous, such as driving over 25 past a school.
We write laws to outlaw specific acts we believe should be outlawed. That does not necessitate eradicating everything.
You claim to work in "employment law". Please post one thing that supports your point that employers and employees are similarly situated. That is the very first step in your nonsensical claim.
Lol at that not being indentured servitude.
Speed limits are based on road conditions and safety considerations. Unisex bathrooms? Not so much.
Yet another spectacularly stupid analogy. You must really have to work hard at being so bad at this.
No, I'm a Human Resources Director for a company with nearly 6,000 employees in three states.
I realize my argument is not the way things are; I'm arguing that my argument is the way things should be. Try to keep up.
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-