POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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

[mookie1995]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[Handyman]

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.

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.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[Drew S.]

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.

[FlagDUDE08]

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/

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

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.

[MaizeRage]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Of course during a natural disaster the left would look to score political points.

Better than Trump just trying to make par.

[The Rube]

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.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Or you don't give a reason.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Or you don't give a reason.

That, too. I would recommend having one to use, just in case, in this litigious society, though.