What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

BassAle said:
Maine is also an at will state, however it's still illegal to fire someone for being gay (there would need to be some kind of evidence that shows you were fired for being gay because in general you don't need a reason to terminate someone's employment).
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be tough to prove unless the people running the company were complete morons.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

burd said:
Who are the racists Trump revealed to us?
Click to expand...

All the ones that were rather quiet before, and now are marching around, or openly ripping Muslims/Mexicans/etc. They feel comfortable in voicing their opinions because of our president.
 
Drew S. said:
I'm not sure about other states, but in Mass you don't need a reason to get rid of someone. I've got mixed feelings on the laws. I don't want people discriminated against for who they are, but at the same time don't think the government should be involved in who is hired and fired.
Click to expand...

I guarantee Mass has an anti discrimination statute of some sort on the books.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

unofan said:
I guarantee Mass has an anti discrimination statute of some sort on the books.
Click to expand...

Massachusetts is one of 19 states (plus D.C.) that prohibit employment decisions based on orientation or gender identity. They are mostly the predictable ones, but Utah stands out to me as a bit of an anomaly. 3 other states prohibit it for orientation only. 28 states, containing most of the nation's population, have no law on the books preventing an employer from firing you or making any other employment decision based on your orientation or gender identity.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Drew S. said:
How do you determine who is objectively the most qualified? And then you also have the issue of who is the best fit culturally. In today's world that isn't a minor consideration. Hiring is a crapshoot and I don't think the government getting involved makes it any better.

On the other end obviously I don't think people should be fired for their sexual orientation. It's hard to prove in a lot of cases though and if laws are too restrictive as far as getting rid of people that creates a whole other host of issues.
Click to expand...

That I find women attractive has no bearing on how well or poorly I might do any job. It will have no bearing on determining objectively who is qualified to do a job. Laws preventing discrimination are hardly the same thing as the government getting involved in the hiring process. The things you are saying about cultural fit and fearing laws that are too restrictive are exactly what people said about enforcement of laws preventing someone from being discriminated based on their color. You sound to me like someone who I would have a field day with in pursuing a claim of unlawful discrimination. In the course of my job I have seen black or gay people terminated or otherwise disciplined because of purely work performance issues. It really is a red herring to say it is difficult to do so. Any half-way competent employer can do it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

WeAreNDHockey said:
That I find women attractive has no bearing on how well or poorly I might do any job. It will have no bearing on determining objectively who is qualified to do a job. Laws preventing discrimination are hardly the same thing as the government getting involved in the hiring process. The things you are saying about cultural fit and fearing laws that are too restrictive are exactly what people said about enforcement of laws preventing someone from being discriminated based on their color. You sound to me like someone who I would have a field day with in pursuing a claim of unlawful discrimination. In the course of my job I have seen black or gay people terminated or otherwise disciplined because of purely work performance issues. It really is a red herring to say it is difficult to do so. Any half-way competent employer can do it.
Click to expand...

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I meant that it is hard for a person fired for reasons related to their sexual orientation to prove a claim, not that it is hard to prove you fired someone for performance reasons. I personally don't fear more restrictive laws on getting rid of people, but could see where there might be some negative unintended consequences. If you don't think companies take things like right to work, workers compensation, and other laws into consideration you are incredibly naive.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

WeAreNDHockey said:
Massachusetts is one of 19 states (plus D.C.) that prohibit employment decisions based on orientation or gender identity. They are mostly the predictable ones, but Utah stands out to me as a bit of an anomaly. 3 other states prohibit it for orientation only. 28 states, containing most of the nation's population, have no law on the books preventing an employer from firing you or making any other employment decision based on your orientation or gender identity.
Click to expand...

morons don't want the dennis rodman's of the world firing them ;)
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Drew S. said:
If you don't think companies take things like right to work, workers compensation, and other laws into consideration you are incredibly naive.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? How does this even relate to the discussion? RTW and worker's compensation laws should also have no bearing on who is hired. And when it comes to employment law and labor relations, I am as far from naive as one can possibly be.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

WeAreNDHockey said:
What does this even mean? How does this even relate to the discussion? RTW and worker's compensation laws should also have no bearing on who is hired. And when it comes to employment law and labor relations, I am as far from naive as one can possibly be.
Click to expand...

The simple point I was making is that the more government involvement there is in an area the more companies are going to look elsewhere. Good intentions don't always help people or have the effect one would like.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Drew S. said:
I'm not sure about other states, but in Mass you don't need a reason to get rid of someone. I've got mixed feelings on the laws. I don't want people discriminated against for who they are, but at the same time don't think the government should be involved in who is hired and fired.
Click to expand...

Minnesota is the same way...but that isnt what this is and you know it. If they were defending that I could buy it (still sickens me) but they are saying you can actually just fire someone for being gay. I will never agree with that. Unless being gay affects the job there is no need for this position.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Handyman said:
Unless being gay affects the job there is no need for this position.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that you are in any way claiming it to be true, but I am curious, does anyone believe there are ANY jobs that a person might not be able to do if they are gay? I mean even porn actors and actresses can work both sides of the road. The only way this is an issue is if there are personal biases and prejudices involved, it seems to me.
 
Handyman said:
Minnesota is the same way...but that isnt what this is and you know it. If they were defending that I could buy it (still sickens me) but they are saying you can actually just fire someone for being gay. I will never agree with that. Unless being gay affects the job there is no need for this position.
Click to expand...

I just read the article. I'm shocked that in the last 25 years or so Congress never passed a law that expressly prohibited firing people based on their sexual orientation(I guess gender identity could be included as well but it seems like that has only become an issue in the last five to 10 years.) I agree with you that it's very bizarre that in this day and age you can fire someone strictly because they're gay. That definitely isn't right.

To answer your question at the end, I can't imagine there are very many. Maybe certain positions in or that deal with certain religious entities. That is the only thing I can think of.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

mookie1995 said:
you still don't need a reason to terminate an employee at will
Click to expand...

True, unless the basis is prohibited by statute or constitution, state of federal. You can fire them based upon the color of their socks but not their skin. Anyone who supports an employer's right to fire a person based on his or her sexual preference is on the wrong side of history, and for good reason.

And (Drew) claiming that a prohibition like that should be avoided because it might be desirable but difficult to enforce is rubbish.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

burd said:
True, unless the basis is prohibited by statute or constitution, state of federal. You can fire them based upon the color of their socks but not their skin. Anyone who supports an employer's right to fire a person based on his or her sexual preference is on the wrong side of history, and for good reason.

And (Drew) claiming that a prohibition like that should be avoided because it might be desirable but difficult to enforce is rubbish.
Click to expand...

Much like NDHockey you're missing the bigger point. The only way to offer much protection is to make all cases of letting people go more difficult. If that were to happen there could be unintended consequences. I absolutely think that it should be illegal to fire people based on their gender identification or sexual preference, but when you combine that with at will employment it doesn't offer them much protection.
 
Re: POTUS 45.20 - Doddering Dotards Dodging Detente

Any competent employer in an at-will state can find SOME reason to let someone go, even IF the "real" reason is because the employee has the gayz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top