Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
Isn't that the point? There shouldn't be any denial or disparagement of those civil rights in any at-will employment State since an employee is equally free to quit on an at-will basis without legal repercussion.
I think humanity's history with discrimination of pretty much everyone makes it necessary for there to be laws which protect citizens of a state against it. While I have no problem with employees firing people who do not conform with malleable aesthetics. Those characteristics which can't be changed or would cause undue hardship on the individual if he/she was asked to change should be protected (this involves belief in X god, political affiliation etc).
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
You want employers to control their employees like they are their possessions, free to hire and fire absent any regulation by the government. That's exactly what you said and it's exactly what you've been arguing.
It doesn't matter, you should never have to choose between your sexual dignity and providing for your family.Would you want to work for a guy that wants you to sleep with him and expects you to do so for the pay you are receiving...even though you don't want to?
I certainly wouldn't.
If it sounds like I've said this before, it's because I have...multiple times.
I want a law which prevents the employee from ever being put in a situation where she has to choose.But you want a law that allows her to stay in that ridiculous job?
Circular argument. Remember the point of this thread and the position I'm arguing.Besides, if he wants her gone, he will just makeup an excuse to fire her
Or she could not be fired at all and/or be able to sue her employer for being fired for refusing sex and get paid far more than she would have working there.It would be far better for her just to be fired because she would not sleep with him and use that as the official reason.
No it won't. Very few people know when they apply for a job why the job is available.It will tell other potential bosses 'hands off' and it will warn other candidates what the guy really wants.
Your entire logic is unrealistic.
People like you want a law that forces people to employ people they don't want, so that these employee's can do jobs they don't like...it's moronic....and it's wrong.
Private companies are PRIVATE. The government has no business telling them who they can employ.
You don't agree...guess how much I care?
And yes, the question is rhetorical...because I don't even care much what your guess is.
We are done on this.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
I believe labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation just because they don't like a job and don't want to have to lie to an employer about it nor waste that employer's time and money just because labor may need money in our Institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.
Nor does the employee have any right of any kind to what the employer has lawfully and ethically acquired other than what is agreed between the employer and employee.
My argument is that both have unalienable rights that neither should be able to infringe. If there is liberty, then the employee can quit his/her job at any time that he/she wants. And the employer can fire an employee any time that he/she wants. Any other policy is involuntary servitude.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776