Thread: Which of the following hypothetical public employees should be fired?

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

I think the vast, vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve a customer due to that person's race. I have never fired anyone working for me in my life, and I am pretty sure that one would be grounds for termination. Refusing to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity is almost always grounds for termination and in the public sector it is every time.

I think the vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve any customer without a very good reason. The whole point of being in business in the first place is to serve customers and make money. Any employee of mine who refused to do his or her job for any reason would no longer be getting a paycheck. The only exception would be on an individual basis, where there was a good reason for not serving this particular customer, not against an entire class of customer.

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

I think the vast, vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve a customer due to that person's race. I have never fired anyone working for me in my life, and I am pretty sure that one would be grounds for termination. Refusing to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity is almost always grounds for termination and in the public sector it is every time.

So if it's grounds for termination, then what is the point of your silly hypotheticals if the "vast, vast majority" of employers would terminate the employees? Do you think there may be an epidemic of wiccans being in a position of being the sole permit providers for drillers? Do you think we have Christians all over the country just waiting for a chance to deny a couple a marriage certificate so they can see their name all over the news and internet and get death threats from strangers and have the righteous on DP call them bigots?

Originally Posted by Cephus

I think the vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve any customer without a very good reason. The whole point of being in business in the first place is to serve customers and make money. Any employee of mine who refused to do his or her job for any reason would no longer be getting a paycheck. The only exception would be on an individual basis, where there was a good reason for not serving this particular customer, not against an entire class of customer.

For any reason?

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

For any reason?

For any reason against a class of people. Individuals maybe. All black people, all gay people, all women, etc. no.

Originally Posted by Cephus

For any reason against a class of people. Individuals maybe. All black people, all gay people, all women, etc. no.

That isn't the same thing as "for any reason".

I don't make blanket statements like that about my employees. I also don't relish the idea of firing a good employee for any reason.

I also know the odds of anyone's employees refusing to serve a class or color or sex of people is less likely than the odds of me waking up naked with Orlando Bloom.

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

That isn't the same thing as "for any reason".

I don't make blanket statements like that about my employees. I also don't relish the idea of firing a good employee for any reason.

I also know the odds of anyone's employees refusing to serve a class or color or sex of people is less likely than the odds of me waking up naked with Orlando Bloom.

I already described this if you bothered to read the whole statement that you quoted, I'm not sure why you're questioning something that I already answered. And if they were good employees, they wouldn't be losing me customers. They'd be able to leave their religion at the door, along with all of their problems, and just do the job they were being paid for. Anyone who cannot do that is not a good employee.

Originally Posted by Cephus

I already described this if you bothered to read the whole statement that you quoted, I'm not sure why you're questioning something that I already answered. And if they were good employees, they wouldn't be losing me customers. They'd be able to leave their religion at the door, along with all of their problems, and just do the job they were being paid for. Anyone who cannot do that is not a good employee.

I understand. You'd fire an employee who had a religious objection to something you want him to do, even if he was a good employee otherwise, rather than do something so that everyone wins, you'd fire him. You don't need to say any more.

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

I understand. You'd fire an employee who had a religious objection to something you want him to do, and if he was a good employee otherwise, rather than do something so that everyone wins, you'd fire him. You don't need to say any more.

If it was part of his job description, damn straight I would. He's welcome to have whatever religious or other objections to anything he's being asked to do. The responsible person would go get another job that didn't involve that objection. The irresponsible person will whine for special rights and privileges. I guess you like irresponsible people working for you.

Originally Posted by Cephus

If it was part of his job description, damn straight I would. He's welcome to have whatever religious or other objections to anything he's being asked to do. The responsible person would go get another job that didn't involve that objection. The irresponsible person will whine for special rights and privileges. I guess you like irresponsible people working for you.

I got it the first time you said it. And the second. Was this last for maximum effect so everyone sees your distaste for religious people one more time?

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

I got it the first time you said it. And the second. Was this last for maximum effect so everyone sees your distaste for religious people one more time?

No, you keep responding. Don't want me to say it again, stop. Easy.