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.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ScoobyDoo said:
Oh, no. She had some wine before going to the Political Rally. Burn her at the stake.
Click to expand...

It's not the wine, I'd have belt if I had to sit through that too; the sleeping through seems a bit untoward and unseemly.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ScoobyDoo said:
Funny. I enjoy political speeches. Right, Left, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Me too. Even when they're lying, it's interesting to listen to how they're lying. This is why I always liked Reagan's speeches, but Nixon's -- now there was an artist.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

They'd be listenable if they knew they were lying.
The speakers (either side) actually believe their own "unneutered male bovine excrement".
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The Sicatoka said:
They'd be listenable if they knew they were lying.
The speakers (either side) actually believe their own "unneutered male bovine excrement".
Click to expand...

Nixon knew he was lying, so his lies were horror. Reagan didn't, so his lies were fantasy.

Both genres have their merits.
 
Handyman said:
You cant be this stupid...the amount of ignorance in the few words you posted is astounding. Like literally you astound me with your post and its stupidity.

Saying you cant fire someone because they are gay doesnt make them protected...it is putting into words what is already accepted for the other class. If I fire someone because I find out they are straight I would get sued. Brownback is trying to say the same thing doesnt apply to gays. That is called discrimination...

But hey God Hates FAGZ!1!!! so it is all good.
Click to expand...

You read my words in light of your political persuasion. There are, to my knowledge, that specifically protect the mainstream from discrimination. We're covered in the general laws.

What I said was that you should get fired for screwing up by the numbers. Not because of your orientation, ethnic group, sex, or whatever. Why have a specific law that targets a specific section of the population? A simple thou shall treat all people equally in all matters should suffice.

I don't like segmenting the population into various groups. I like homogenization. And bullies need to be punished and the weak protected.

But wishing will not make it so.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
And bullies need to be punished and the weak protected.

But wishing will not make it so.
Click to expand...

Hence the need for the laws.

The beginning of your posts seem to be in a civil war with the end of your posts. :confused:


I'm not against a broad law that says "thou shalt not discriminate," but there will still need to be a definition somewhere of what constitutes discrimination, and such a definition will in part enumerate all the things that qualify. If you want to pass that law I will support it. However, since there are ample examples of people being discriminated against specifically due to particular characteristics, and there are even more examples of employers trying to get around discriminatory practices by claiming sham "performance" rationales, the targeted laws are still needed.

Because wishing will not make it so.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
A simple thou shall treat all people equally in all matters should suffice.
Click to expand...

I like it that UMinn will be forced to sign Canadians who are as skilled as their homegrown clowns. Would end that godawful chirping.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

burd said:
I like it that UMinn will be forced to sign Canadians who are as skilled as their homegrown clowns. Would end that godawful chirping.
Click to expand...

What year do you live in? :confused:
 
joecct said:
You read my words in light of your political persuasion. There are, to my knowledge, that specifically protect the mainstream from discrimination. We're covered in the general laws.

What I said was that you should get fired for screwing up by the numbers. Not because of your orientation, ethnic group, sex, or whatever. Why have a specific law that targets a specific section of the population? A simple thou shall treat all people equally in all matters should suffice.

I don't like segmenting the population into various groups. I like homogenization. And bullies need to be punished and the weak protected.

But wishing will not make it so.
Click to expand...

If you are fired for being a Christian heterosexual white male, you can file suit just like anyone else.

But unless you have some strong evidence, good luck proving that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
Hence the need for the laws.

The beginning of your posts seem to be in a civil war with the end of your posts. :confused:


I'm not against a broad law that says "thou shalt not discriminate," but there will still need to be a definition somewhere of what constitutes discrimination, and such a definition will in part enumerate all the things that qualify. If you want to pass that law I will support it. However, since there are ample examples of people being discriminated against specifically due to particular characteristics, and there are even more examples of employers trying to get around discriminatory practices by claiming sham "performance" rationales, the targeted laws are still needed.

Because wishing will not make it so.
Click to expand...

If they made a wide spread law it would be perfect. It would be even better if they didnt NEED the law. Problem is bigots still rule the roost and stupidity rules the day.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
I'm not against a broad law that says "thou shalt not discriminate," but there will still need to be a definition somewhere of what constitutes discrimination, and such a definition will in part enumerate all the things that qualify.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If I'm hiring engineers and I "discriminate" (i.e. select disproportionately) in favor of tall engineers, that's probably suspect, since height is pretty clearly not related to the job function. But if I'm an NBA team hiring players, then I surely ought to be able discriminate in favor of taller players.

"Thou shalt not discriminate" is a slogan, not a policy.
 
joecct said:
We've all been discriminated against in one way shape or form.

We do not live in Utopia and wishing will not make it so.
Click to expand...

Bull*hi*. May I not have been included in a circle of friends for not fitting in throughnthe years? Probably. Have I evre not been hired or conversely fired due to discrimination? No and neither have you.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
We've all been discriminated against in one way shape or form.
Click to expand...

How have you been discriminated against?

And no, getting rejected by a pretty girl is not discrimination. ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting 5 - 4 ruling.

Alito, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor in the majority, Scalia, Kagan, Thomas, Kennedy in the minority, overruling prosecutors in a SarBox-related case involving the Florida Fish and Game Commission and a fisherman who tossed some fish overboard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top