Employers are citizens, too... why do you not care if employers are subject to the thought police?
A perverted campaign against LGBT rights in Houston
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Employers are citizens, too... why do you not care if employers are subject to the thought police?
Yes, I realize selective enforcement is the norm in this progressive age. I'm suggesting that it's wrong. Enforce it on everybody or don't enforce it at all.
Employers can "think" anything they want. They just have to act within the laws as written.
Employers have more power than employees and potential workers.
No, your way of thinking is wrong.
As it stands right now don't the employers pay the employees? If that's the case, who holds more power or authority?
Except this is your most basic lie. No, they do not. They can fire for any reason beyond the non-protected.
So the only situation where your drivel applies is when the boss calls HR and says, "I'm tired of having this fag work here, fire him." And you immediately respond, "ummm no, that is illegal."
They don't navigate anything else to fire someone for a LNDR.
You can't do so in a vacuum. The only "solution" to what you claim is involuntary servitude, which nobody agrees with.
Also, an employer can always hire new employees. Employees can't always get jobs. Are you saying that basic truth is, in fact, false?
The law?
More specifically:
Employers sell a "product", whether it be goods, services, etc. They employ employees to distribute that product. They enter the public marketplace to sell that product AND to obtain employees. Once in that marketplace, society decided that there are "bad" and "discriminatory" bases on which employers should not be able to make their decision.
Like Religion. We, as a society decided that we would not allow businesses to refuse hirings(firings) on the basis that they are Catholic, or Jewish, or HROTish, or whatever.
You obviously have a problem with that, but your argument has hinged on it being "unequal treatment" and a "violation of the Constitution," of which you can support neither. Your next step is to say that it is too narrow because it leaves a lot of other discrimination out there.
But that ignores the post I've now repeated twice, now thrice: Not all discrimination is invidious, nor even societally "bad", and not all discrimination needs to be fixed. Unequal treatment applies to those who are on equal footing, or SIMILARLY SITUATED to begin with...which employers/employees are not.
Simply put: We don't need to fix ALL discrimination in order to fix BAD discrimination. That is a really poor straw party you are throwing.
So, the answer is the law. We don't have to outlaw everything in order to outlaw some things. We can high a high speed limit in some places and have a low one in others, it does not require all of them be banned "equally". Just like some places can ban use of marijuana, but others may not. To think that localities can't pass laws is very unamerican, especially on the basis that other places may not have the same laws.
Last edited:
The Tradition said: ↑
Yes, I realize selective enforcement is the norm in this progressive age. I'm suggesting that it's wrong. Enforce it on everybody or don't enforce it at all.
And ffs, this completely ignores the basis for enforcement in the first place. First, recognize the harm, Second, understand its scope, and Third, figure out a solution. Instead you start with 3 and invent a problem to go with it. Do you even have something to support this invidious discrimination that is so harmful to employers, based on discriminatory actions of employees? Is it so rampant that we even need to discuss it, on a federal level?
Last edited:
LOL, you have no freaking idea.
Here's how it works. The employee will file a charge that says, "I am a black female. I was fired on October 10, 2015. I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race and my sex."
THAT'S ALL WE GET. We then have to show that the termination was for non-discriminatory reasons.
Funny that I, unlike you, actually do have an idea, which is evident in this thread. So you get that complaint........and then you show the LNDR.
Oh right, that is where you claim they make all of this money doing this...right.
Oh right, that is where you claim they make all of this money doing this...right.
You REALLY think businesses haven't been harmed by the discriminatory biases of their customers and their employees? Total non-issue, right?
Good lord you are a simpleton. Feel free to support your claim, according to you it must be rampant. I mean, in order to want to deal with it at a federal level you'd think you'd want to support your case...
Also: lol at adding customers. Oh wait, you believe they are similarly situated too, don't you?
Again, a customer cancels a contract with you because you sent a black technician to his house.
Or a customer objects to being treated by a gay male nurse.
Or a customer gets up and walks out when a latina waitress approaches the table to take his order.
Such behavior damages the business. Business owners should therefore be able to seek damages from such bigots.
Again. AGAIN. You ignore the first step, similarly situated, and it is important here.
A business, an employer, wants compensation, compensation for its service. So the hospital wants money for the nurse's time/actions. The restaurant wants money for sales of food.
A person doesn't need to agree to purchase any of those things. The employer wants to sell them. Society/the marketplace has decided that somebody wanting to sell in the marketplace must do so to "everybody", explicitly delineating who is protected.
Nobody is wanting to force purchasing on customers, or force acceptance of services.
They aren't similar to begin with.
We get your point. You think that employers should be able to discriminate because employees can. That is a simplistic, irrelevant conflation. As I've pointed out, we don't have to outlaw everything in order to stop the bad things, we can simply outlaw the bad things. Your point can be reiterated as, "I should be able to drive 55 on this street because it is allowed on that other street...if you are going to outlaw 'speeding' you must do so for everyone everywhere." Except no, no you don't.
And no, they can still offer that service/good to anyone else. Another reason employees are situated differently, they can't simply sell themselves elsewhere, they've been fired.
Wrong. Companies are not guaranteed customers. The hospital one is just plain stupid as we adjust staff all the time at patients requests.
Now, if said customers go on a public forum complaining about the company's employees in some bigoted fashion AND the company can prove future earnings were significantly adversely affected then I believe there may be some recourse.
But if someone just walks out of your diner or decides not to use your services in the future then no you shouldn't have any recourse.
You just keep on outdoing yourself with ridiculous analogies.
Here's a better one:
Commercial vehicles have to drive 55 while everybody else can drive 70.
Why? Commercial vehicles are owned by people with money, so screw them... they should all have to get out of my way.
That is unlawful. You're lucky you haven't been slapped with an EEOC charge of discrimination. "Customer preference" is not an excuse for workplace discrimination.
It's not discrimination. It's called patient care. You do what's best for the patient and if that means juggling staff to make them more comfortable and/or more compliant with their treatment then that's wwhat you do. Nobody's denying the staff their employment in any way, shape, or form.
You've never worked in a hospital have you?
You are potentially giving her an assignment that is more arduous, or less preferable in order to accommodate a bigot. Perhaps the bigot only needs a pill while the alternate patient has C-Diff.
Do that enough times and trust me. You'll get complaints.
Oyvey.
First, now you've proven your earlier failure to understand similarly situated, because here you actually use a slightly more cogent example.
In this case at least both of the parties are doing the same thing: driving. (In your employer/ee example they are NOT doing the same thing, they are doing opposing things, that is fairly fundamental) This can be seen, simplistically, in using the same term for both: Driver.
But, then even you qualified it to separate them. One is commercial, say a semi driver, the other is non-commercial, say Natural in his pink VW bug. So even then they are no longer similarly situated because they are affecting different things. One is driving larger, heavier, more robust and more dangerous equipment hauling much more valuable cargo. This is precisely why semi drivers are, in fact, treated differently under the law. They obtain CDLs they require safety checks, log books, etc.
But back to your first line, I wasn't making an analogy to employer/ee and it is pathetic you don't get that (for the fourth time). The analogy is to claiming that outlawing one thing in one place necessitates outlawing a different thing in a different place. Like my prior analogy: You complain that you should be able to drive 55 on road A simply because it is 55 on Road B. There is no Constitutional provision hindering separate classifications for separate, non similar things.
Last edited:
You are calling for stopping employees from quitting, therefore requiring them to work. That is definitional involuntary servitude.
You try to get around this by saying, "No, no, I would just make them pay damages..." which is simply another way of forcing the involuntary servitude.
If your problem is employees wanting to quit, your only solution is to stop that from happening, and you are trying to do so with money.
What you truly fail to grasp is that this type of situation DOES, in fact, occur.....in contracts, but companies don't want to contract, because they want to summarily fire their employees. What you appear to be arguing for now (after changing a few times) is that all employment should be contracted with explicit out-clauses. Que Inigo Montoya.
You obviously know nothing about inpatient care and the mindset of staff employed in such occupations. Same goes for outpatient care.
No, you clueless wonder. I am for punishing employees who discriminate in the workplace. You seem to come from the planet that says the business owner can't be a victim. Well, you're full of crap. The business owner is the whipping boy for the 21st century and I'm sick to death of it.
Maybe we really do need Trump.
LOL, my company operates three-dozen nursing homes. Nurses are WAY wacked-out crazy birds, who complain at the drop of a hat.
"Commercial" vehicles includes the "Geek Squad's" VW bugs. I wasn't talking about semi-trucks. That was your sorry ass assumption.
*Poof* there goes your entire rant down the drain.....
I like that idea too, but I fear we are greatly in the minority. Can you even imagine what the popular sentiment would have been if Bush had responding to 9/11 with an aid package to Afghanistan instead of an invasion? People are violent, they like the idea of war a lot.I could leave out the war part in all things in moderation
Lol at those being "commercial vehicles" or that you won any argument on this basis. You are a buffoon.
We're talking about different types of facilities. But, I stand by my statement given my experience.
Also, you just showed an inherent bias in your description of nurses.
Do you personally work with any of these nurses you are so critical of? I work side by side with them and think I know a bit more about their mindset than you do.
This is beyond hilarious. Ignoring your hard on for trying to make the employer the victim you think TRUMP will help you? This guy has put more small businesses out of work than any of the candidates combined.
You were the one who assumed I meant "giant ass trucks regulated by the DOT".... something I never said. Stop putting words in my mouth and maybe... just maybe.... we could actually have a conversation like adults?
You literally posted "commercial vehicle."
Are you now saying you don't know what a commercial vehicle is?
