- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
My business, my rules. Don't like them, go start your own.
5.) again thats nice IF it resolves the issues and the people HAPPEN to agree but what happens when they dont and there is still lawyers there using law for arbitration
anyway im just not sure what you want.
1.)The point is that arbitration is enormously successful and popular with international trade and increasingly with employment contracts. You asked specifically how contracts would be enforced without implicit government backing and I informed you how it does happen today; not some theoretical model or assumption. Furthermore, overlapping legal jurisdictions (or complete lack thereof) are among the primary reasons for pursuing arbitration. As such, legal precedent is non-binding in these matters.
2.) Debate consists of making a claim and backing it up with supporting arguments. This claim is tempered with a counterclaim and challenging arguments. Your style is essentially a dismissal of the claim and a reiteration of the counterclaim.
3.)To be perfectly fair, a large number of people are guilty of this act on this forum.
4.) However, there seems to be a consensus that attempting to debate a topic with you is futile so I thought I would offer a bit of advice to make the process more enjoyable.
Not all employers are owners. In many companies, there's not even one owner. Furthermore, just because a person seeks one, it doesn't mean they don't seek another. Ridiculous argument.Does they owner seek profit or seek sex?
A woman's employment should not depend on her using her body for sex. She's not owed a job, but she should not be prohibited a job because she's not a whore. For anyone to say otherwise is incredibly sexist.Because you keep talking about her dignity.
That is absolutely nothing to do with the terms of her employment.
Listen, Sport. I asked you a very simple question. You keep dodging around the question. I only extrapolated because you wouldn't answer. I'll ask again and if you truly desire an honest discussion, you'll answer.Blah blah blah blah blah. What I have found is that you enjoy the whole exercise of being condescending and then patting yourself on the back as if you've accomplished something. "Oh it's clear you don't understand, let me try this again to see if this can be made any clearer, obviously I'm confusing you, mmmyeah mmmyeah mmmyeah..." And so and so forth. You extrapolated from my position and made it into something it is not. You then attacked the position you created in your mind and attributed to me. Finally you proceeded to preen and bask in your imagined victory. Straw man. Smart guy. Have fun with your forum wanking, it's seems to be an addiction of sorts for you lol.
Not all employers are owners.
My question is about an employee not getting fired for refusing sex. Pay attention.So your question is about some manager not doing their job?
My question is about an employee not getting fired for refusing sex. .
I didn't say that.That is what the owner wants the manager to do?
I didn't say that.
My question is about an employee not getting fired for refusing sex. Pay attention.
Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?Then the manager is not doing their job?
Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?
A woman's employment should not depend on her using her body for sex. She's not owed a job, but she should not be prohibited a job because she's not a whore. For anyone to say otherwise is incredibly sexist.
But it's not a "free" country. It's a country which was run and exploited by white males for centuries. The playing field is not level and has never been level. And without protection of the employee, it can never become level.Because it is the owner's business? Because there are women perfectly willing to exchange sex for perks on the job? Because there is no way to know why the employer fired the employee? Take your pick.
Any employer who would hire somebody purely because that employee looks like somebody who could be exploited for sex is scum. And if that employee doesn't work out in that way, well, it's a free country. Or something to that effect.
No respectable woman should have to decide between providing for her family and her integrity.No respectable woman will work for such a person for that matter.
As long as you're willing to admit you support the idea it's okay for an employer to hold another's personal morality ransom for sex, then I think we both can agree we're not going to care for the other's opinion.Lol...whatever pal.
I am saying that an employer should be able to fire an employee for ANY reason - looks, race, height, sex, eye color, penis size, favorite sorts team, favorite color...ANYTHING...no matter how pathetic the reason.
I have already explained why.
You don't agree...I don't much care.
Good day.
But it's not a "free" country. It's a country which was run and exploited by white males for centuries. The playing field is not level and has never been level. And without protection of the employee, it can never become level.
No respectable woman should have to decide between providing for her family and her integrity.
As long as you're willing to admit you support the idea it's okay for an employer to hold another's personal morality ransom for sex, then I think we both can agree we're not going to care for the other's opinion.
Why do you support owners firing employees for refusing sex?
But it's not a "free" country. It's a country which was run and exploited by white males for centuries. The playing field is not level and has never been level. And without protection of the employee, it can never become level.
No respectable woman should have to decide between providing for her family and her integrity.
As long as you're willing to admit you support the idea it's okay for an employer to hold another's personal morality ransom for sex, then I think we both can agree we're not going to care for the other's opinion.
Yes, you did. You think it's okay to be put into a situation where she has to decide between compromising her moral integrity or being unable to provide for her family based upon the outcome of her decision on whether or not she should have sex with her boss.I never said such a thing.
So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?So your question is about the owners, good. Why is the owner doing this and not trying to maximize profits?
It's not irrelevant, it's incredibly relevant. I've already told you why.Who ran and exploited the country whenever is irrelevant to the concept of whether a person should or should not have the choice of how to use his/her own property and resources so long as he does not violate the rights of others.
I believe no one should be denied the opportunity for a living based upon gender or race.So if you believe that any person has a RIGHT to work for me.
I believe the law should prohibit your from ruining people's lives because they refuse to do something illegal or immoral. As for what's considered immoral, that would require legislation to determine.So if you believe that any person who works for me has a RIGHT to keep his/her job under certain circumstances.
So if you believe that the law should be able to forbid me from firing somebody or require me to hire somebody. . . .
Since when did you have the inalienable right to control another person's life by using money produced by the government and benefiting from taxpayer dollars? People are neither your property or your possessions. If you want total control of your business, don't look to hire anyone. But the moment you agree to accept benefits provided by the US government (currency, taxpayer built roads, etc.), your concept of "unalienable" rights loses value.Then you do not believe in the unalienable right to our property and possessions that were acquired legally and ethically. Why don't we just throw all the concepts of unalienable rights out the window and admit that we are under totalitarian rule with no rights at all other than what the government decides we might have today and maybe tomorrow too?
So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?
Yes, you did. You think it's okay to be put into a situation where she has to decide between compromising her moral integrity or being unable to provide for her family based upon the outcome of her decision on whether or not she should have sex with her boss.
So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?
It's not irrelevant, it's incredibly relevant. I've already told you why.
I believe no one should be denied the opportunity for a living based upon gender or race.
I believe the law should prohibit your from ruining people's lives because they refuse to do something illegal or immoral. As for what's considered immoral, that would require legislation to determine.
Since when did you have the inalienable right to control another person's life by using money produced by the government and benefiting from taxpayer dollars? People are neither your property or your possessions. If you want total control of your business, don't look to hire anyone. But the moment you agree to accept benefits provided by the US government (currency, taxpayer built roads, etc.), your concept of "unalienable" rights loses value.
It's incredibly convenient for you to take the benefits granted to you by the people of this country and then turn around and demand you have the "unalienable" right to do what you want with the lives of those who helped make your business possible.
Yes, you did. You think it's okay to be put into a situation where she has to decide between compromising her moral integrity or being unable to provide for her family based upon the outcome of her decision on whether or not she should have sex with her boss.
So you admit you're okay with bosses firing employees for refusing sex?
It's not irrelevant, it's incredibly relevant. I've already told you why.
I believe no one should be denied the opportunity for a living based upon gender or race.
I believe the law should prohibit your from ruining people's lives because they refuse to do something illegal or immoral. As for what's considered immoral, that would require legislation to determine.
Since when did you have the inalienable right to control another person's life by using money produced by the government and benefiting from taxpayer dollars? People are neither your property or your possessions. If you want total control of your business, don't look to hire anyone. But the moment you agree to accept benefits provided by the US government (currency, taxpayer built roads, etc.), your concept of "unalienable" rights loses value.
It's incredibly convenient for you to take the benefits granted to you by the people of this country and then turn around and demand you have the "unalienable" right to do what you want with the lives of those who helped make your business possible.
I will ask you again:
The guy hires the gal. He then tells her she must sleep with him to keep her job. She tells him to stuff it - and quits.
Where is the damage to her personal morality?
Firing somebody or not hiring somebody simply because of race, gender, religion etc is illegal and it should remain that way, theres no logic to support allowing it.