POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Trump attacks Puerto Rican mayor for 'nasty' comments amid island's crisis. So presidential.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Trumps DOJ Says It Is Fair Game To Fire Someone For Being Gay

From the link:

Mooppan, explained that, under federal law, employers were absolutely free “to regulate employees’ off-the-job sexual behavior,” meaning they could discriminate against employees for adultery, promiscuity or sexual orientation.

Please Righties defend this...

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

tD plan "not good for me"

About time a pol doesn't think only for himself

[MissThundercat]

Trumps DOJ Says It Is Fair Game To Fire Someone For Being Gay

From the link:



Please Righties defend this...

As someone who's out of the closet, good thing my employer includes sexual orientation and gender identity in its non-discrimination policy.

[unofan]

Trumps DOJ Says It Is Fair Game To Fire Someone For Being Gay

From the link:



Please Righties defend this...

Legally, they aren't necessarily wrong. Sexual orientation is not explicitly protected at the federal level, and the Obama administration's work around of shoehorning it in as sex discrimination is awkward at best.

That said, nothing requires the DOJ to take a position in stone of these cases. And its position reversal in the Colorado cake baker case is asinine.

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Trumps DOJ Says It Is Fair Game To Fire Someone For Being Gay

From the link:



Please Righties defend this...

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.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Former CIA Chief questions trump's leadership.

Even though he was top dog in the CIA during Obama's term, you'd think at some point these constant and daily refutations of trump's abilities to be president would resonate with SOME of his voters. I know they won't, because as is becoming more and more apparent every day, Hillary was off by a country mile. Pretty much if you voted for trump, you are deplorable. Yes there are exceptions to that here or there, but those are simply the people too naive and ill-informed to even understand the complexities of modern day politics and the roles our elected officials really play.

trump is a mix of mental illness and evil. There can be no rational argument that concludes differently. If you possess all your marbles and are not actively opposing trump at this point, you ARE deplorable. I am reminding my republican U.S. senator and my U.S representative in the House of this on a regular basis. I hope any of you so afflicted with elected representatives are doing so as well. I am fortunate (in one way) that a large portion of my job focuses on politics, so I have a platform to efficiently speak on these issues to a lot of people. I am reminding them of it as often as I can, and hoping it has at least some effect.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

It boggles my mind that people like you don't think the government's role is precisely in areas like this. Who else is there to protect someone who is discriminated against? Yes, I don't want any government to determine the skills required to put a tire on a car or design an advertising campaign. But to ensure that people are hired or not hired on anything other than their ability to perform the required tasks of a job is within the scope of any government that purports to "protect" its citizens against all foes foreign or domestic.

It is such a simple thing to say "we don't want big government" but it always seems to me the people who shout that the loudest simply want the government to protect the things they care about, like guns and who the fvck I sleep with.

[BassAle]

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.

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).

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

It boggles my mind that people like you don't think the government's role is precisely in areas like this. Who else is there to protect someone who is discriminated against? Yes, I don't want any government to determine the skills required to put a tire on a car or design an advertising campaign. But to ensure that people are hired or not hired on anything other than their ability to perform the required tasks of a job is within the scope of any government that purports to "protect" its citizens against all foes foreign or domestic.

It is such a simple thing to say "we don't want big government" but it always seems to me the people who shout that the loudest simply want the government to protect the things they care about, like guns and who the fvck I sleep with.

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.

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[unofan]

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.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.