- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It is not illegal always.
Facts and logic prove you wrong.
proof?
It is not illegal always.
Facts and logic prove you wrong.
I suspect that those who you are in disagreement with expect society to punish employers who use bigoted reasons to hire/fire employees.I love reading the supporters of bigotry and discrimination dance and dance dance hoping the spaghetti they throw at the wall stick, but it never does.
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.
These are rules/laws we ALL must play by in the public realm area and with public access business.
If people dont like these laws and rules the solution is VERY simple. . . . . .. Dont open a business, nobody is forcing you too lol
or you can also work privately like out of your home and have other options
if you do open a business and then you CHOOSE to break the law, sorry about your luck idiot, breaking the law as consequences.
I suspect that those who you are in disagreement with expect society to punish employers who use bigoted reasons to hire/fire employees.
But not with laws.
When will you learn the difference between the words "owner" and "boss"? When will you understand seeking one thing doesn't prohibit you from seeking another?Why is the owner doing this and not trying to maximize profits?
Nah, what you REALLY did is realize how absurd your position is. The fact you just tried to claim people as property was the icing on the cake.I thought about identifying all the straw men and non sequitur comments built into your response. And then I thought, naw. Why bother? You obviously totally missed the point I was making, and I doubt any argument would be able to clarify that for you. But do have a wonderful day.
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?
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.
When will you learn the difference between the words "owner" and "boss"?
I suspect that those who you disagree with think having the government protect our rights in this way is in itself a violation of our rights.which is irrational
it will empower bigotry, discrimination and the violating of others rights
no thanks i want our rights protected, mine and yours, thats the government's job
so they can support bigotry and discrimination but not me
Can you not review what I said?You do not mean the owner of the business?
Can you not review what I said?
I have clarified, multiple times. Re-read those.I asked but you cannot clarify (because of the problems is causes for you).
Okay, you told me your opinion.When will you learn the difference between the words "owner" and "boss"? When will you understand seeking one thing doesn't prohibit you from seeking another?
Nah, what you REALLY did is realize how absurd your position is. The fact you just tried to claim people as property was the icing on the cake.
And I'll tell you again:
I already did.Okay, you told me your opinion.
Now are you going to answer my question or not?
I have clarified, multiple times.
Why is the owner/boss doing this and not trying to maximize profits?
When will you learn the difference between the words "owner" and "boss"? When will you understand seeking one thing doesn't prohibit you from seeking another?
Nah, what you REALLY did is realize how absurd your position is. The fact you just tried to claim people as property was the icing on the cake.
And I'll tell you again:
Uhh, yes you did. You said the following, in a discussion about whether or not employers should have unchecked power to hire and fire:The fact that you interpreted what I said as people being property was far more telling than anything I said. Most especially since you made that interpretation and I said nothing like that.
There's nothing difficult about anything. You seem to think employers should have unhindered access to a person's life, playing by absolutely nobody's rules, despite the massive benefits they receive from outside sources. You think regulation prohibiting the free exercise of firing people gets in the way of their "unalienable right to...property and possessions".I stand firm that my opinion is correct that you totally missed the point and you still have not addressed it. And no doubt will continue to do so as it would present a difficulty for your point of view.
You think everyone can only do and focus on one thing at a time?You think you can maximize profits while not doing the job?
You think everyone can only do and focus on one thing at a time?
Do you think everyone is the same?Depends if it is true that they only seek to maximize profits. Do they?
Do you think everyone is the same?
Uhh, yes you did. You said the following, in a discussion about whether or not employers should have unchecked power to hire and fire:
"Then you do not believe in the unalienable right to our property and possessions that were acquired legally and ethically."
People are not your property. I went on to say:
"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."
There's nothing difficult about anything. You seem to think employers should have unhindered access to a person's life, playing by absolutely nobody's rules, despite the massive benefits they receive from outside sources. You think regulation prohibiting the free exercise of firing people gets in the way of their "unalienable right to...property and possessions".
People are not property or possessions. If you don't want to be hindered by government regulations regarding hiring and firing, then don't hire anyone. But when you operate a business which relies on A) police support paid by taxpayers B) currency backed by the US government C) public roads to access your business D) various other things, then it's silly to claim the business should get all of these benefits from the public while still being able to treat people like property, to do with as they see fit.
I already did.
And finally, what good does the law do here?
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.
But you want a law that allows her to stay in that ridiculous job? What for? How will that give her dignity?
Besides, if he wants her gone, he will just makeup an excuse to fire her so he can get an employee that WILL sleep with him. And this lie will go on her permanent record.
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.
It will tell other potential bosses 'hands off' and it will warn other candidates what the guy really wants.
or more rationally it deters the boss from even asking and she just keep her job no harm no foul lol
it would NEVER be far better to just have her be fired thats absurd lol
But that still isn't the point. The point is whether we have the unalienable right to use our money, our property, our resources that we acquired legally and ethically for our own benefit and for our own interests so long as we do not violate the rights of any other. Does that employee have any right to that money, that property, those resources other than what he or she agrees with the employer? And if the employer no longer needs or wants that employee for whatever reason, and no agreement with the employee is violated, why should the employer not let the employee go? The reason is really immaterial.