Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    PopeHat may be dead but RammedTheRampartsHat has picked up where it left off.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
      PopeHat may be dead but RammedTheRampartsHat has picked up where it left off.
      And St. Ruth?

      http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2019/07...and-incorrupt/
      CCT '77 & '78
      4 kids
      5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
      1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

      ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

      I want to live forever. So far, so good.

      Comment


      • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

        Originally posted by joecct View Post
        Pretty snotty for people who like to think of themselves as "loving."

        But that particular breed of Catholic cat wouldn't know ἀγάπη if it bit them.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

          In 26 states, including Michigan, I could lose my job for being trans.

          https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y...DbJhJFNymZhXao

          The current crop of cases before the court DOES affect me. I try not to worry about it, but with Justice Pabst Blue Ribbon, I am concerned.
          Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
          "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
          Patreon for exclusive writing content
          Adventures With Amber Marie

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MissThundercat View Post
            In 26 states, including Michigan, I could lose my job for being trans.

            https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y...DbJhJFNymZhXao

            The current crop of cases before the court DOES affect me. I try not to worry about it, but with Justice Pabst Blue Ribbon, I am concerned.
            Should be:
            Fired for your actions (or lack of) not who you are.

            Reality:
            Never mind facts, we'll find some way to boot your arse to the curb.
            CCT '77 & '78
            4 kids
            5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
            1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

            ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
            - Benjamin Franklin

            Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

            I want to live forever. So far, so good.

            Comment


            • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

              Originally posted by joecct View Post
              Should be:
              Fired for your actions (or lack of) not who you are.

              Reality:
              Never mind facts, we'll find some way to boot your arse to the curb.
              We actually have ways of changing this. They are called laws.

              Funny how the Republican party always tries to stop laws which force employers to prove work deficiencies, meanwhile striking down laws which would make it illegal to fire somebody based on their sexuality. Hmm. It's almost as if that party is virtue signalling to its supporters who want to continue having their hate not just unpunished but tacitly approved of. In this case the "virtue" is bigotry, but it comes from an old Jewish fairytale so it's sacred.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                We actually have ways of changing this. They are called laws.

                Funny how the Republican party always tries to stop laws which force employers to prove work deficiencies, meanwhile striking down laws which would make it illegal to fire somebody based on their sexuality. Hmm. It's almost as if that party is virtue signalling to its supporters who want to continue having their hate not just unpunished but tacitly approved of. In this case the "virtue" is bigotry, but it comes from an old Jewish fairytale so it's sacred.
                Didn’t you say anyone who uses the term “virtue signaling” shouldn’t be taken seriously?
                Code:
                As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                Originally posted by SanTropez
                May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                Originally posted by Kepler
                When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                Comment


                • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                  Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                  We actually have ways of changing this. They are called laws.

                  Funny how the Republican party always tries to stop laws which force employers to prove work deficiencies, meanwhile striking down laws which would make it illegal to fire somebody based on their sexuality. Hmm. It's almost as if that party is virtue signalling to its supporters who want to continue having their hate not just unpunished but tacitly approved of. In this case the "virtue" is bigotry, but it comes from an old Jewish fairytale so it's sacred.
                  Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

                  I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
                  That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                    Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

                    I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
                    I've seen people get fired at my job for the following

                    Excessive absence
                    Doing something stupid like violate Lock Out Tag Out
                    Or for gross incompetence, like it's clear they can't handle the job.

                    What Kepler and I are saying is fire me for those reasons, not because I'm trans.
                    Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
                    "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
                    Patreon for exclusive writing content
                    Adventures With Amber Marie

                    Comment


                    • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                      Originally posted by MissThundercat View Post
                      I've seen people get fired at my job for the following

                      Excessive absence
                      Doing something stupid like violate Lock Out Tag Out
                      Or for gross incompetence, like it's clear they can't handle the job.

                      What Kepler and I are saying is fire me for those reasons, not because I'm trans.
                      I don't think employers should be allowed to fire people based upon their gender identity. I've never said to the contrary.

                      My question for Kep was specifically related to the first part of his statement in which he at least implied that employers should have to "prove work deficiencies" before they be allowed to fire someone. I disagree with this. I think that just as an employee should be entitled to better his or her job situation by finding new employment, the employer should be able to do the same, to better his or her business by replacing current employees with better and more talented employees.
                      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                        Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

                        I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
                        If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

                        And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.
                        "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                        -aparch

                        "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                        -INCH

                        Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                        -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                        Comment


                        • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                          Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                          Didn’t you say anyone who uses the term “virtue signaling” shouldn’t be taken seriously?
                          Shh. I'm trying to reclaim the term.
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment


                          • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                            Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                            Let's set aside issues relating to whether there should be protected classes of people (there should) based upon race, sex, national origin, gender identity, etc.., and let me ask you this about the first part of your statement.

                            I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
                            Originally posted by MissThundercat View Post
                            I've seen people get fired at my job for the following

                            Excessive absence
                            Doing something stupid like violate Lock Out Tag Out
                            Or for gross incompetence, like it's clear they can't handle the job.

                            What Kepler and I are saying is fire me for those reasons, not because I'm trans.
                            From what I've read of the previous posts it sounds as if the two you may not be in disagreement. If Hovey is saying what I think he is saying--that in an at-will employment (and not controlled by statute or contract) an employer may terminate an employee for any reason not related to recognized forms of discrimination, among which it appears he would include gender identity. In other words, an employer can't terminate (or refuse to hire) based on gender identity. The rub, of course, is dealing with pretext terminations. But in theory, at least, I'm not sure you two disagree.

                            Comment


                            • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                              I assume you believe employees should have unfettered right to simply quit their job and go elsewhere if they choose? But employers should not have that same right? They should not have the right to decide they can do better in terms of who they have working for them?
                              Employer loses an employee he loses a fungible, easily replaced asset.

                              Employee loses a job he loses livelihood and security.

                              The employer-employee "contract" is highly asymmetric. My preference is for the ownership of places of work to be split evenly among the workers themselves. That's a long was off, so in the interim I'm bringing the full force of regulation and law on the side of the weaker party.

                              Exploiters have their wealth to manage cash flow crises, they don't need the law to magnify their advantages over their serfs, er, sorry, employees. The exploited have only their numbers -- that was the whole point of democracy in the first place.

                              If employers think this is unfair they always have the choice to switch places with one of their employees and see what life's like on the knife edge of capitalism.
                              Last edited by Kepler; 07-23-2019, 10:37 AM.
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                                Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                                If employers apply the rules fairly then yes. Problem is we all know that isnt going to happen. Even at our best jobs the rules are almost never applied right and people get punished or fired for doing the same (or less) than those that keep their jobs or move ahead for various reasons. And there is no real way to prevent that...

                                And you cant really compare quitting and firing because there is a negative connotation to being fired.
                                I think there would be a negative connotation to an employer who just randomly fires people as well. Plus personally I've refused to hire people who had what seemed to me to be a history of quitting after a short period of time and jumping from job to job.

                                I just have a lot of trouble with the argument that I, as an employer, need to come up with some sort of "cause" to justify your termination. Some people simply don't fit in a job. Personalities don't mesh. The employee doesn't see the job or how it's to be performed in the same way as the employer. Employee "X" is every bit as mediocre as me is an argument that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
                                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X