Page 21 of 51 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 1002

Thread: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

  1. #401
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    3,598

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by BassAle View Post
    Maine is also an at will state, however it's still illegal to fire someone for being gay (there would need to be some kind of evidence that shows you were fired for being gay because in general you don't need a reason to terminate someone's employment).
    Yeah, it would be tough to prove unless the people running the company were complete morons.
    Originally posted by BobbyBrady
    Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

  2. #402
    Anti-Semantic Brenthoven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chez Rube
    Posts
    110,940

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    Who are the racists Trump revealed to us?
    All the ones that were rather quiet before, and now are marching around, or openly ripping Muslims/Mexicans/etc. They feel comfortable in voicing their opinions because of our president.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

  3. #403
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    18,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
    I'm not sure about other states, but in Mass you don't need a reason to get rid of someone. I've got mixed feelings on the laws. I don't want people discriminated against for who they are, but at the same time don't think the government should be involved in who is hired and fired.
    I guarantee Mass has an anti discrimination statute of some sort on the books.

  4. #404
    \../ \../
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Patiently awaiting changes I know are not coming.
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    I guarantee Mass has an anti discrimination statute of some sort on the books.
    Massachusetts is one of 19 states (plus D.C.) that prohibit employment decisions based on orientation or gender identity. They are mostly the predictable ones, but Utah stands out to me as a bit of an anomaly. 3 other states prohibit it for orientation only. 28 states, containing most of the nation's population, have no law on the books preventing an employer from firing you or making any other employment decision based on your orientation or gender identity.

  5. #405
    \../ \../
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Patiently awaiting changes I know are not coming.
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
    How do you determine who is objectively the most qualified? And then you also have the issue of who is the best fit culturally. In today's world that isn't a minor consideration. Hiring is a crapshoot and I don't think the government getting involved makes it any better.

    On the other end obviously I don't think people should be fired for their sexual orientation. It's hard to prove in a lot of cases though and if laws are too restrictive as far as getting rid of people that creates a whole other host of issues.
    That I find women attractive has no bearing on how well or poorly I might do any job. It will have no bearing on determining objectively who is qualified to do a job. Laws preventing discrimination are hardly the same thing as the government getting involved in the hiring process. The things you are saying about cultural fit and fearing laws that are too restrictive are exactly what people said about enforcement of laws preventing someone from being discriminated based on their color. You sound to me like someone who I would have a field day with in pursuing a claim of unlawful discrimination. In the course of my job I have seen black or gay people terminated or otherwise disciplined because of purely work performance issues. It really is a red herring to say it is difficult to do so. Any half-way competent employer can do it.

  6. #406
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    3,598

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    That I find women attractive has no bearing on how well or poorly I might do any job. It will have no bearing on determining objectively who is qualified to do a job. Laws preventing discrimination are hardly the same thing as the government getting involved in the hiring process. The things you are saying about cultural fit and fearing laws that are too restrictive are exactly what people said about enforcement of laws preventing someone from being discriminated based on their color. You sound to me like someone who I would have a field day with in pursuing a claim of unlawful discrimination. In the course of my job I have seen black or gay people terminated or otherwise disciplined because of purely work performance issues. It really is a red herring to say it is difficult to do so. Any half-way competent employer can do it.
    I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I meant that it is hard for a person fired for reasons related to their sexual orientation to prove a claim, not that it is hard to prove you fired someone for performance reasons. I personally don't fear more restrictive laws on getting rid of people, but could see where there might be some negative unintended consequences. If you don't think companies take things like right to work, workers compensation, and other laws into consideration you are incredibly naive.
    Originally posted by BobbyBrady
    Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

  7. #407
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    37,159

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    I guarantee Mass has an anti discrimination statute of some sort on the books.
    you still don't need a reason to terminate an employee at will
    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

  8. #408
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    37,159

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    Massachusetts is one of 19 states (plus D.C.) that prohibit employment decisions based on orientation or gender identity. They are mostly the predictable ones, but Utah stands out to me as a bit of an anomaly. 3 other states prohibit it for orientation only. 28 states, containing most of the nation's population, have no law on the books preventing an employer from firing you or making any other employment decision based on your orientation or gender identity.
    morons don't want the dennis rodman's of the world firing them
    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

  9. #409
    \../ \../
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Patiently awaiting changes I know are not coming.
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
    If you don't think companies take things like right to work, workers compensation, and other laws into consideration you are incredibly naive.
    What does this even mean? How does this even relate to the discussion? RTW and worker's compensation laws should also have no bearing on who is hired. And when it comes to employment law and labor relations, I am as far from naive as one can possibly be.
    Last edited by WeAreNDHockey; 10-01-2017 at 11:52 AM.

  10. #410
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    3,598

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    What does this even mean? How does this even relate to the discussion? RTW and worker's compensation laws should also have no bearing on who is hired. And when it comes to employment law and labor relations, I am as far from naive as one can possibly be.
    The simple point I was making is that the more government involvement there is in an area the more companies are going to look elsewhere. Good intentions don't always help people or have the effect one would like.
    Originally posted by BobbyBrady
    Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

  11. #411
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Crystal, MN
    Posts
    34,251

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
    I'm not sure about other states, but in Mass you don't need a reason to get rid of someone. I've got mixed feelings on the laws. I don't want people discriminated against for who they are, but at the same time don't think the government should be involved in who is hired and fired.
    Minnesota is the same way...but that isnt what this is and you know it. If they were defending that I could buy it (still sickens me) but they are saying you can actually just fire someone for being gay. I will never agree with that. Unless being gay affects the job there is no need for this position.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

  12. #412
    \../ \../
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Patiently awaiting changes I know are not coming.
    Posts
    1,752

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    Unless being gay affects the job there is no need for this position.
    I am not saying that you are in any way claiming it to be true, but I am curious, does anyone believe there are ANY jobs that a person might not be able to do if they are gay? I mean even porn actors and actresses can work both sides of the road. The only way this is an issue is if there are personal biases and prejudices involved, it seems to me.

  13. #413
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    3,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    Minnesota is the same way...but that isnt what this is and you know it. If they were defending that I could buy it (still sickens me) but they are saying you can actually just fire someone for being gay. I will never agree with that. Unless being gay affects the job there is no need for this position.
    I just read the article. I'm shocked that in the last 25 years or so Congress never passed a law that expressly prohibited firing people based on their sexual orientation(I guess gender identity could be included as well but it seems like that has only become an issue in the last five to 10 years.) I agree with you that it's very bizarre that in this day and age you can fire someone strictly because they're gay. That definitely isn't right.

    To answer your question at the end, I can't imagine there are very many. Maybe certain positions in or that deal with certain religious entities. That is the only thing I can think of.

  14. #414
    They ignore ridicule & fight; I win
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    42,444

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Of course during a natural disaster the left would look to score political points... https://www.infowars.com/bombshell-d...barrass-trump/
    It was an honor to present your colors, RPI. Let's Go 'TUTE!
    May 14th, 2011, 11:00 PM ET: 2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    I'm not happy about it either, but Flag is correct (cue the Twilight Zone music!).
    Quote Originally Posted by French Rage View Post
    Ahh crap I agree exactly with what FlagDude said.
    Quote Originally Posted by jericho on rpitv's chat
    I never thought I would say this, but you are right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    And yet, even if Flaggy is complete tinfoil hat, every day it looks closer and closer to the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    So flaggy: you win.

  15. #415
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,674

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    you still don't need a reason to terminate an employee at will
    True, unless the basis is prohibited by statute or constitution, state of federal. You can fire them based upon the color of their socks but not their skin. Anyone who supports an employer's right to fire a person based on his or her sexual preference is on the wrong side of history, and for good reason.

    And (Drew) claiming that a prohibition like that should be avoided because it might be desirable but difficult to enforce is rubbish.

  16. #416
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    3,598

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    True, unless the basis is prohibited by statute or constitution, state of federal. You can fire them based upon the color of their socks but not their skin. Anyone who supports an employer's right to fire a person based on his or her sexual preference is on the wrong side of history, and for good reason.

    And (Drew) claiming that a prohibition like that should be avoided because it might be desirable but difficult to enforce is rubbish.
    Much like NDHockey you're missing the bigger point. The only way to offer much protection is to make all cases of letting people go more difficult. If that were to happen there could be unintended consequences. I absolutely think that it should be illegal to fire people based on their gender identification or sexual preference, but when you combine that with at will employment it doesn't offer them much protection.
    Originally posted by BobbyBrady
    Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

  17. #417
    lucky penguin
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    16,768

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Of course during a natural disaster the left would look to score political points.
    Better than Trump just trying to make par.
    Originally posted by dicaslover
    Yep, you got it. I heart Maize.

    Originally posted by Kristin
    Maybe I'm missing something but you just asked me which MSU I go to and then you knew the theme of my homecoming, how do you know one and not the other?

    Western College Hockey Blog

  18. #418
    Anti-Semantic Brenthoven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chez Rube
    Posts
    110,940

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Any competent employer in an at-will state can find SOME reason to let someone go, even IF the "real" reason is because the employee has the gayz.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

  19. #419
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    22,362

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Or you don't give a reason.

  20. #420
    Anti-Semantic Brenthoven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chez Rube
    Posts
    110,940

    Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Or you don't give a reason.
    That, too. I would recommend having one to use, just in case, in this litigious society, though.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •