A perverted campaign against LGBT rights in Houston

[The Tradition]

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.

So, you're okay with a gay business owner being turned down by applicants because they don't want to work for a gay boss?

But if a straight boss doesn't want gay employees, he should be sued?

How is this fair? How does this further the cause of equality?

 

[theIowaHawk]

So, you're okay with a gay business owner being turned down by applicants because they don't want to work for a gay boss?

But if a straight boss doesn't want gay employees, he should be sued?

How is this fair? How does this further the cause of equality?

You do realize (he must, right?) that your alternative is to require slavery, right? Maybe not whips/chains slavery, but slavery nonetheless.

If you understood this you might understand my earlier posts.

 

[theIowaHawk]

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.

Yep, he made me facepalm.

 

[naturalmwa]

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.

That's the problem. You aren't very well versed on this topic, you have some rather strongly held bizzar opinions about history and law and you refuse to become education.

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.

which is why you are arguing for forced patronage and employment. Connect the dots, they are very close together. You even admit it here.

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.

 

[The Tradition]

You do realize (he must, right?) that your alternative is to require slavery, right? Maybe not whips/chains slavery, but slavery nonetheless.

So, when an arbitrator orders reinstatement of an employee wrongfully terminated, what do you call that?

In any case, it's not "slavery"... the applicant found to have illegally discriminated against the employer could choose to pay damages and move on. In employment law, the remedy is to put the individual who was discriminated against in the same place he would have been had the discrimination not occurred. So, in a typical case, someone who was wrongfully terminated and got an equivalent job two weeks later is due two weeks of pay. That's all the damages he can recover. So, for the employer, we'd be looking at the cost and time needed to find a different applicant who accepts the job.

You're also ignoring that the bar for "applicant discrimination" would be extremely high. You'd need some evidence, like a dumb comment in the interview or a damning FaceBook post, to prove that the candidate turned the job down because the boss was gay.

 

[pablow]

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.

Wrong again. You misstated the golden rule. It's “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt. 7:12). It's not "treating others with respect and civility and as they want to be treated." Clever slight of hand. Under your modified Golden Rule I can demand to be treated as I want. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Your last two sentences - "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" - are quite condescending. I don't need you to tell me how to be respectful to others.

 

[The Tradition]

"you have some rather strongly held bizzar opinions about history and law and you refuse to become education."

That would be a really cool sig quote right there.

 

[mstp1992]

1. So, you're okay with a gay business owner being turned down by applicants because they don't want to work for a gay boss?

2. But if a straight boss doesn't want gay employees, he should be sued?

3. How is this fair? How does this further the cause of equality?

1. Yes.

2. Yes, if said applicant can show (s)he was turned down for the job solely based on sexual orientation. If you're an expert in HR you could easily show cause for hiring someone else, though, regardless of sexual orientation. I have a friend in HR at Rockwell and we've had discussions about such issues.

3. Employers and employees are NOT on equal ground to begin with, so there should be no question of equality.

 

[The Tradition]

1. Yes.

2. Yes, if said applicant can show (s)he was turned down for the job solely based on sexual orientation. If you're an expert in HR you could easily show cause for hiring someone else, though, regardless of sexual orientation. I have a friend in HR at Rockwell and we've had discussions about such issues.

3. Employers and employees are NOT on equal ground to begin with, so there should be no question of equality.

As to #2, yes, it is often difficult to prove discriminatory intent.

As to #3, that is plainly false. There are many businesses that would go out of business immediately if their key employee walked. All businesses are not "Giant Mega Corp Amalgamated."

That's the point people like you can't seem to grasp. Just because someone chooses to be an employee doesn't mean that this person is not on equal ground with the employer. And in all cases, the employment relationship absolutely provides equal rights for both sides to terminate the relationship whenever for whatever reason. So, please explain how they're not on equal ground.

 

[theIowaHawk]

So, when an arbitrator orders reinstatement of an employee wrongfully terminated, what do you call that?

.

How could that possibly be slavery? Nobody is forcing the employer to work, nobody is forcing the employee to work....the arbitrator doesn't force them to return.

Lol at the "could choose to pay damages and move on". Sure, if it is specifically negotiated in the contract they signed to begin with, but that isn't even what you are purporting.

Try this: Those negroes didn't HAVE to work for me, they just had to pay me damages if they wished to leave.

Right, that isn't slavery at all...

 

[naturalmwa]

As to #2, yes, it is often difficult to prove discriminatory intent.

As to #3, that is plainly false. There are many businesses that would go out of business immediately if their key employee walked. All businesses are not "Giant Mega Corp Amalgamated."

That's the point people like you can't seem to grasp. Just because someone chooses to be an employee doesn't mean that this person is not on equal ground with the employer. And in all cases, the employment relationship absolutely provides equal rights for both sides to terminate the relationship whenever for whatever reason. So, please explain how they're not on equal ground.

Money, it's that simple.

 

[theIowaHawk]

As to #2, yes, it is often difficult to prove discriminatory intent.

As to #3, that is plainly false. There are many businesses that would go out of business immediately if their key employee walked. All businesses are not "Giant Mega Corp Amalgamated."

That's the point people like you can't seem to grasp. Just because someone chooses to be an employee doesn't mean that this person is not on equal ground with the employer. And in all cases, the employment relationship absolutely provides equal rights for both sides to terminate the relationship whenever for whatever reason. So, please explain how they're not on equal ground.

Stop with the "equal ground" nonsense, not only is it nonsensical, but it is wrong and I can't believe you don't know that. They have to be similarly situated, and you can't demonstrate that they are. They are fundamentally different. One employs people, the other is employed. There is a reason there are two different terms, because they are two different things.

You can't look at "criminals" and say that it is "unequal" to send one to prison for 5 years and the other for 50...because murderers and drug possessors are not similarly situated. Similarly so here, they don't need to be treated "equally", because they aren't similar for that purpose.

You claim to be in the employment arena yet can't point to anything that supports your point.

 

[theIowaHawk]

There are many businesses that would go out of business immediately if their key employee walked. All businesses are not "Giant Mega Corp Amalgamated."
.

Again, this is pointless drivel, because the alternative is INDENTURED SERVITUDE. The alternative is to force them to continue working. Even the most employer-friendly laws don't contemplate that nonsense. Even non-competes don't contemplate that nonsense.

It has nothing to do with the size of the company, or the fact that the "business" is just a guy with a truck. He is an employer. He is not similar to an employee.

 

[The Tradition]

How could that possibly be slavery? Nobody is forcing the employer to work, nobody is forcing the employee to work....the arbitrator doesn't force them to return.

Lol at the "could choose to pay damages and move on". Sure, if it is specifically negotiated in the contract they signed to begin with, but that isn't even what you are purporting.

Try this: Those negroes didn't HAVE to work for me, they just had to pay me damages if they wished to leave.

Right, that isn't slavery at all...

Yet another failed analogy. You should take your show on the road.

Yes, BINDING ARBITRATION means the parties have to do what the arbitrator says. If an employer is FORCED to employee someone, what do you call it? It's not slavery, but it's certainly forced.

Back to your stupid analogy: if the workers left because they found a better job, that's not discrimination. If the workers quit because of the boss' race, age, sex, religion, national origin, military service, disability, pregnancy, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity, etc., etc., then that would be discrimination.

Get it, yet?

 

[naturalmwa]

Stop with the "equal ground" nonsense, not only is it nonsensical, but it is wrong and I can't believe you don't know that. They have to be similarly situated, and you can't demonstrate that they are. They are fundamentally different. One employs people, the other is employed. There is a reason there are two different terms, because they are two different things.

You can't look at "criminals" and say that it is "unequal" to send one to prison for 5 years and the other for 50...because murderers and drug possessors are not similarly situated. Similarly so here, they don't need to be treated "equally", because they aren't similar for that purpose.

You claim to be in the employment arena yet can't point to anything that supports your point.

He would be sort of a dream HR director for the stereotypical evil uncaring corporation however. I wonder if the corporation brainwashed him to think they are the victims or if he got the job because he expressed those views? Either way, if you're going into the HR field, thinking like this would be to your personal benefit. Probably hard to get him to see reason when unreasonable ideas put food in his belly.

 

[The Tradition]

Again, this is pointless drivel, because the alternative is INDENTURED SERVITUDE. The alternative is to force them to continue working. Even the most employer-friendly laws don't contemplate that nonsense. Even non-competes don't contemplate that nonsense.

It has nothing to do with the size of the company, or the fact that the "business" is just a guy with a truck. He is an employer. He is not similar to an employee.

Are you even reading my posts or just picking out pieces to scream about without even noticing that I already addressed your dumb, erroneous non-point?

 

[The Tradition]

He would be sort of a dream HR director for the stereotypical evil uncaring corporation however. I wonder if the corporation brainwashed him to think they are the victims or if he got the job because he expressed those views? Either way, if you're going into the HR field, thinking like this would be to your personal benefit. Probably hard to get him to see reason when unreasonable ideas put food in his belly.

HR folks are people, too. And employees. I'm all for fairness. HR is not your union rep.

 

[The Tradition]

Again, this is pointless drivel, because the alternative is INDENTURED SERVITUDE. The alternative is to force them to continue working. Even the most employer-friendly laws don't contemplate that nonsense. Even non-competes don't contemplate that nonsense.

It has nothing to do with the size of the company, or the fact that the "business" is just a guy with a truck. He is an employer. He is not similar to an employee.

Then you really don't care about discrimination. All you care about is sticking it to the "evil" employer.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yet another failed analogy. You should take your show on the road.

Yes, BINDING ARBITRATION means the parties have to do what the arbitrator says. If an employer is FORCED to employee someone, what do you call it? It's not slavery, but it's certainly forced.

Back to your stupid analogy: if the workers left because they found a better job, that's not discrimination. If the workers quit because of the boss' race, age, sex, religion, national origin, military service, disability, pregnancy, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity, etc., etc., then that would be discrimination.

Get it, yet?

This is hilariously wrong. The binding arbitration requires the employer to take the employee back....not that the employee has to work there.

Force =/= slavery. What a ridiculously dumb thing to say about it being forced. All laws "force", all of them. Maybe you don't understand definitions, but this is from the Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

That would be forcing someone to work, which we don't allow.

There is nothing in your drivel to get, you ignore even what I post. I'm not comparing negro slavery to your involuntary servitude. I'm saying that allowing for money damages does not release it from being slavery. It just creates slavery by another name.

 

[mstp1992]

As to #2, yes, it is often difficult to prove discriminatory intent.

As to #3, that is plainly false. There are many businesses that would go out of business immediately if their key employee walked. All businesses are not "Giant Mega Corp Amalgamated."

That's the point people like you can't seem to grasp. Just because someone chooses to be an employee doesn't mean that this person is not on equal ground with the employer. And in all cases, the employment relationship absolutely provides equal rights for both sides to terminate the relationship whenever for whatever reason. So, please explain how they're not on equal ground.

In Iowa apparently you can be fired for being perceived as "too attractive." Tell me how the employer and employee are on equal ground in this instance.

Employers and employees do not have an equal relationship. One is a boss, the other a worker. By definition, they are different.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Then you really don't care about discrimination. All you care about is sticking it to the "evil" employer.

Oh bother, seriously, read the posts you respond to.

I'll repost this one from hours ago:

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?
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.

 

[The Tradition]

This is hilariously wrong. The binding arbitration requires the employer to take the employee back....not that the employee has to work there.

Force =/= slavery. What a ridiculously dumb thing to say about it being forced. All laws "force", all of them. Maybe you don't understand definitions, but this is from the Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

That would be forcing someone to work, which we don't allow.

There is nothing in your drivel to get, you ignore even what I post. I'm not comparing negro slavery to your involuntary servitude. I'm saying that allowing for money damages does not release it from being slavery. It just creates slavery by another name.

HELLO! MCFLY! I never said the employee is required to take the job if reinstatement is ordered. You came up with that conclusion on your own.

What do you call it when the EMPLOYER is forced to EMPLOY someone against their will?

 

[The Tradition]

In Iowa apparently you can be fired for being perceived as "too attractive." Tell me how the employer and employee are on equal ground in this instance.

Employers and employees do not have an equal relationship. One is a boss, the other a worker. By definition, they are different.

Everywhere, employees can quit for any reason at all (even discriminatory ones) and employers have all sorts of prohibitions on who they can fire and why. So you're right... the employees are on higher ground under our current paradigm. And that's not fair.

 

[The Tradition]

This is hilariously wrong. The binding arbitration requires the employer to take the employee back....not that the employee has to work there.

Force =/= slavery. What a ridiculously dumb thing to say about it being forced. All laws "force", all of them. Maybe you don't understand definitions, but this is from the Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

That would be forcing someone to work, which we don't allow.

There is nothing in your drivel to get, you ignore even what I post. I'm not comparing negro slavery to your involuntary servitude. I'm saying that allowing for money damages does not release it from being slavery. It just creates slavery by another name.

Paying damages for harming someone is NOT slavery by another name. GTFO.

 

[naturalmwa]

HR folks are people, too. And employees. I'm all for fairness. HR is not your union rep.

I don't think fairness means what you think it means. Fairness means taking into account the actual circumstance without bias. You insist on ignoring the inherent differences in power and circumstance between employers and workers and between corporations and individual private citizens. You are biased towards the powers that pay you.

 

[The Tradition]

We write laws to outlaw specific acts we believe should be outlawed. That does not necessitate eradicating everything.

Right, and I am arguing that our laws should be amended so that employees are prohibited from discrimination, too.

What a horrible thing to ask.

 

[naturalmwa]

Right, and I am arguing that our laws should be amended so that employees are prohibited from discrimination, too.

What a horrible thing to ask.

Keep going. You're at your first dot. Move on down the argument chain.

 

[mstp1992]

Everywhere, employees can quit for any reason at all (even discriminatory ones) and employers have all sorts of prohibitions on who they can fire and why. So you're right... the employees are on higher ground under our current paradigm. And that's not fair.

No, the employee is NOT on higher ground.

 

[The Tradition]

I don't think fairness means what you think it means. Fairness means taking into account the actual circumstance without bias. You insist on ignoring the inherent differences in power and circumstance between employers and workers and between corporations and individual private citizens. You are biased towards the powers that pay you.

You're wrong. You can't see past "evil corporations" to realize that the vast majority of jobs are provided by very small employers. You don't acknowledge the high rate of small business failure in this country. You assume that because a business has the means to employ someone, that automatically this business has all the "power." THAT IS NOT TRUE. A large number of businesses are one payroll away from bankruptcy.

 

[mstp1992]

THAT IS NOT TRUE. A large number of businesses are one payroll away from bankruptcy.

And that threat, in and of itself, is a powerful motivating factor for the employer to demand more from the employee.
"Times are tough, we can't give you a raise."
"Had to lay off Cletis, so you're gonna have to pick up his hours."
"If you don't pull in more sales, we're going to have to shut it down."

 

[The Tradition]

No, the employee is NOT on higher ground.

How do you figure? Employees have protections and employers do not.

 

[naturalmwa]

You're wrong. You can't see past "evil corporations" to realize that the vast majority of jobs are provided by very small employers. You don't acknowledge the high rate of small business failure in this country. You assume that because a business has the means to employ someone, that automatically this business has all the "power." THAT IS NOT TRUE. A large number of businesses are one payroll away from bankruptcy.

I acknowledge all of that, it's just all irrelevant to the topic.

 

[mstp1992]

How do you figure? Employees have protections and employers do not.

Who writes the paycheck?

 

[The Tradition]

I acknowledge all of that, it's just all irrelevant to the topic.

No, it's not.

The argument is that since the employer has the right to fire, then the employer has to navigate all these protected statuses in order to fire.

Meanwhile, everyone ignores that employees have the right to quit, and the employer should just have to suck that up, even if the employee's motivation for quitting is discriminatory.

So... my solution is, scrap the anti-discrimination laws, and let society shame the discriminators. As a bonus, we wouldn't have to pay for a ridiculous government agency anymore.

 

[TexMichFan]

Where do you see rules being followed where war exists?

More like people breaking rules to make war.

 

[mstp1992]

The EEOC was established BECAUSE employers had a history of discrimination.

Eliminating such regulatory bodies will just recreate the problems of the past.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, it's not.

The argument is that since the employer has the right to fire, then the employer has to navigate all these protected statuses in order to fire.

Meanwhile, everyone ignores that employees have the right to quit, and the employer should just have to suck that up, even if the employee's motivation for quitting is discriminatory.

So... my solution is, scrap the anti-discrimination laws, and let society shame the discriminators. As a bonus, we wouldn't have to pay for a ridiculous government agency anymore.

You have failed to convince me your world is better than mine. I like being able to enforce civil rights. I don't think they should be a matter of popular approval. Freedom ain't free. I vote we continue to pay for enforcement.

 

[naturalmwa]

More like people breaking rules to make war.

Exactly. Where the rule of law exists, you have peace. No rules, no peace. Regulation is essential to everything we like about civilization. Of course the wisdom of Apollo should be remembered, all things in moderation.

 

[The Tradition]

You have failed to convince me your world is better than mine. I like being able to enforce civil rights. I don't think they should be a matter of popular approval. Freedom ain't free. I vote we continue to pay for enforcement.

Fine. Enforce civil rights on everybody, not just businesses.

 

[mstp1992]

Fine. Enforce civil rights on everybody, not just businesses.

Why?
If you go down that road then you're looking at "thought police."