Re: Should employers have the freedom to hire/fire for any reason they wish
No. Not in the context of this discussion it's not.
Uh, yeah, it kind of is.
And I've been very clear.
No, you have not. You'll be clear when you answer the question. But we both know why you won't answer the question. To say it's okay for a woman to be fired for refusing sex makes you look bad, but saying it's not okay opens the door to other moral problems and ruins your "total freedom to hire/fire" position.
It's not a difficult question. It's a very simple question. The difficult part is how your answer affects you.
The OP used the term "freedom." Freedom to hire and fire at will. I think you just like to see yourself typing or something.
And I've already said granting all hiring/firing power to employer is not freedom (as you tried to define it) but rather a simple transfer of power.
No, I'm not "okay" with it. Just like I"m not "okay" with people dropping the "N" word. But I am okay with Freedom of Speech.
:roll:
Playing semantics and you accuse me of posting because I like to see myself type? Fine, I'll rephrase it.
Do you think an employer should be allowed to fire an employee for refusing sex?
Why is the concept so hard for you to grasp?
Because I thought we were having a good and honest discussion, and you apparently prefer word games.
The straw man you are fighting with doesn't even resemble me.
I don't think you understand what a straw man is. One thing which bothers me is people accusing others of fallacies incorrectly.
Oh so now you are arguing morals.
Uh no, I've been arguing that with you from the very beginning. I wish you'd keep up.
How about the employee's morals which align with common societal morals? Like sex, for example.
And if you think I feel differently you have serious reading comprehension issues.
Uh, no I do not. I asked you time and time again if you were okay with it and you NEVER said you weren't. How is your lack of communication now my reading comprehension issue? That doesn't make sense. It wasn't until this post you said you weren't okay with it personally, but then suggested you are okay with it being legal. I then asked you to clarify, so I'll be interested to see if you believe it's okay to fire someone for not having sex with you.
It went right over your head didn't it?
No. The only person whose head flew under the point was yours, apparently. You're asking me why I'm focused on sex and not other things which could be considered offensive. I told you why, which is that I'm not the only pushing the idea it should be legally okay to fire someone for not being a whore.
The point -----> You
Hopefully the above happens.
I forgot how fun people like you can be.
Thanks. I always enjoy posting with people who cannot remember a thread of debate, use fallacies incorrectly and accuse me of a reading comprehension problem because I cannot read their mind fun also.
Now you're talking about something completely different. What you are describing is stealing. What we were discussing was an employer deciding as to whether or not to employ someone.
I see. So when power rests in the hands of the employer, almost anything goes. When the power rests in the hand of the consumer, then suddenly we have a big problem.
If you work and I don't pay you I'm stealing money you have earned. If I fire you I don't have to pay you because you no longer work for me. I don't know if you're reframing for the sake of argument or just being obtuse.
I was reframing to show you the absurdity of claiming freedom, as you did.
I'm gonna start calling you Norma Rae Quixote.
I'll call you "Sport". Now we both have nicknames, Sport.
Ummmm...she can say 'no'.
And then she'll lose her ability to feed her children. And then when she goes on welfare, half the country can call her a moocher and a taker and lazy.
That sounds fun.
(and btw - women bosses sometimes exploit their underling's for sex/companionship)
They sure do, but you and I both know males hold the large majority of positions of power.
If she did not have sex with him, then she was not sexually exploited - he 'only' attempted to sexually exploit her.
If there is even a moment's hesitation as the woman tries to balance her job and family vs. her dignity, she's being exploited.
Just sayin'.
2) Which internationally respected, human rights organization (like the U.N.) states that a private employer owes ANYONE a job? Or is responsible for another's dignity through employment?
The answer - to my knowledge - is none do.
I agree. No one has said someone is owed a job. I'm simply pointing out people should be owed protection while working for that job. So I'm not really sure why you brought this up.
