If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Today's example of Republican re-branding and outreach to minorities: Rick Rubio says it should be legal for employers to fire someone for being gay   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 196
    More: Asinine, rubio, Republican, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, workplace discrimination, coming out, middle ground, minorities, Alan Keyes  
•       •       •

3377 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2013 at 6:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-13 07:44:07 PM  

dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.


Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|
 
2013-06-13 07:47:13 PM  
that's cause Ricky takes secretly takes it up the arse.
 
2013-06-13 07:48:26 PM  

Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|


Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.
 
2013-06-13 07:50:01 PM  

Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.


i have two questions for you:

1.  Is your safety helmet securely strapped on?
2.  Is a responsible adult anywhere in your general vicinity?
 
2013-06-13 07:50:33 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.


And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.
 
2013-06-13 07:51:34 PM  

whither_apophis: Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?

A Spainish born basketball player, but that's not important right now.


Would be awesome if the Timberpups signed Jason Collins. "I like penetrating defenses, then passing to Jason so he can finish at the rim."
 
2013-06-13 07:54:41 PM  

dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.


My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).
 
2013-06-13 07:55:30 PM  

Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.


You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.
 
2013-06-13 07:58:43 PM  

Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?


I had a discussion last evening with a CEO. Apparently, white males are the most desired in hiring not because they're better at anything, but because it's easiest to fire them when needed. If you hired a female or one from a minority race, you could get into a lot of legal issues when firing someone like that, just because the person would play the discrimination card. Kinda twisted everything around.
 
2013-06-13 08:00:15 PM  

Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.

My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).


No. No business in America can fire an employee due to one's membership in a protected class. The thing is, everyone belongs to a protected class. You cannot be fired just because you happen to be white, or male, or what have you.

Also, businesses may not discriminate on the basis of a customer's membership in a protected class. See the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case.
 
2013-06-13 08:03:26 PM  

dericwater: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?

I had a discussion last evening with a CEO. Apparently, white males are the most desired in hiring not because they're better at anything, but because it's easiest to fire them when needed. If you hired a female or one from a minority race, you could get into a lot of legal issues when firing someone like that, just because the person would play the discrimination card. Kinda twisted everything around.


I'm guessing that CEO is either A. The "CEO" of Bubba's Freedom Eagle Gun Shop and Salvage Yard in Birmingham Alabama, B. A moron or C. Taco Shell Girl.
 
2013-06-13 08:04:32 PM  
Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy

Shaggy, does it really never occur to you that YOU might be one of the little guys...?

Or do you really prefer that people with less economic ability ought to just...vanish somehow and quit "oppressing" the whoever-you-think-are-normal people?
 
2013-06-13 08:06:18 PM  

BMulligan: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.

My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).

No. No business in America can fire an employee due to one's membership in a protected class. The thing is, everyone belongs to a protected class. You cannot be fired just because you happen to be white, or male, or what have you.

Also, businesses may not discriminate on the basis of a customer's membership in a protected class. See the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case.


Then how can you have businesses like Curves, which are Women Only gyms? Gender is a protected class.
 
2013-06-13 08:09:43 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.


S. Americans? Super Americans, Straight Americans, Special Americans, Southern Americans, Sexy Americans, Swallowing Americans, Stereotypical Amerians?

Help me out, here.
 
2013-06-13 08:11:05 PM  

Kittypie070: Shaggy, does it really never occur to you that YOU might be one of the little guys...?


I absolutely am a "little guy".  Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is.  Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee.  Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.

BMulligan: You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.


Those weren't lies - those are legitimate legal issues taken up in the last few years.  The second (around different testing for female firefighters) was actually from Canada but I'm pretty sure there was a similar disparate impact suit around firefighters here in Chicago around the written tests that they had to go through.  The homosexual harrassment one was hypothetical - a case hasn't made it to a Supreme Court (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_%28PSERC%29_v._BCGSEU
 
2013-06-13 08:13:25 PM  
Dear GOP,

You do know that if LBGT voters voted the same as non-LBGT voters that Mitt would be president right now.   You also know that anti-gay bigotry turns off young voters.   Voters, more often then not, tend to get set for who they vote for when young.  Naturally you are driving millions and millions of young voters away from you while those pleased by such bigotry are dying off from the usual process of the young replacing the old.   But heck, there are some old people converting away from bigotry even before they die.

You can't say that you are not warned.   No whining when you weep what you sow, please.  You will get no sympathy.
 
2013-06-13 08:16:00 PM  

Lackofname: My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).


Here's the thing; the same people who are asshole enough to fire someone for their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc, are usually also stupid enough to also tell people and document that they're bigots/racists/whatever.

It's almost that being stupid goes hand and hand with being a bigot/racist.
 
2013-06-13 08:16:11 PM  

BMulligan: Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.

You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.


Technically, it's only a lie if they don't believe it when they say it. Thing is, this kind of crap is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-06-13 08:17:01 PM  

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


He's the star of  The Legend of Creepy Swallow*.

*stole that from another farker, but don't remember who it was.
 
2013-06-13 08:17:31 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


It's like what happens when you stand near the edge of a cliff. You don't have any desire to kill yourself, and no possible reason to want to jump, but then a mental hysteresis kicks in. Your brain was screaming so loud to stay away from the edge, and you do, so it stops screaming "stay away from the edge", and in the silence in the wake of the screams ending a small voice says step closer to the edge, one more step ... just an off-handed remark about gays, or rape, or women being naturally subservient to men.
 
2013-06-13 08:20:48 PM  

12349876: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.


no, it doesn't. That's what you wish it would mean but it's really not the case for the vast majority of Mexican peasants who are coming here for work.
 
2013-06-13 08:20:59 PM  

Triple Oak: Just everything they say is awful and yet the ignorant voters continue to see no problems.

/and by voters I mean white people
//and by white people I mean terrible white men and the women they've convinced to not have their own thoughts


Why do you think the GOP has such a push to privatize every aspect of government, and lauding the idea of "running a government like a business"?  Who picks the leaders of a large company?  Hint: it's not the workers.
 
2013-06-13 08:24:47 PM  

Shaggy_C: Kittypie070: Shaggy, does it really never occur to you that YOU might be one of the little guys...?

I absolutely am a "little guy".  Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is.  Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee.  Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.

BMulligan: You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.

Those weren't lies - those are legitimate legal issues taken up in the last few years.  The second (around different testing for female firefighters) was actually from Canada but I'm pretty sure there was a similar disparate impact suit around firefighters here in Chicago around the written tests that they had to go through.  The homosexual harrassment one was hypothetical - a case hasn't made it to a Supreme Court (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_%28PSERC%29_v._BCGSEU


SCOTUS ruled against the peyote smokers, so pretty much no dice there.  And are you seriously citing Canadian law in US Employment law?  Really?
 
2013-06-13 08:24:58 PM  
Shaggy_C:

I absolutely am a "little guy".  Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is.  Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee.  Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.

And WHY were those laws put into place? Massive systematic abuse of those with limited resources or who are minorities by those with resources and influence and in the majority. People were/are routinely evicted/ripped off/robbed/fired/exploited by landlords/employers who simply SAY they didn't pay or they broke the lease or that they 'agreed' to the employment terms or whatever. The only recourse is far too late/expensive/impossible to navigate. The big guy can absolutely not ever be trusted to do the right thing without oversight and rules.

To look at those laws in a vacuum is just farking childish, and results in nonsense like rand paul saying the market would sort out civil rights.
 
2013-06-13 08:29:56 PM  
Does Rubio really believe this?  Who knows/  Does Rubio believe this position will help get him the Republican nomination?  Absolutely.
 
2013-06-13 08:32:40 PM  

pueblonative: SCOTUS ruled against the peyote smokers, so pretty much no dice there. And are you seriously citing Canadian law in US Employment law? Really?


Ah, but in the aftermath Oregon changed their law to allow religious exemptions - and when the congress tried to pass a law barring it, that was overturned by the Supreme Court.  So that particular case was a loss, yes, but in the long run it did change the way we treat religious exemption.  And the other was a memory slip on my part.  I guess we could focus on the more recent Chicago firefighter exam which was determined to be racist for no other reason than poorly educated people were more like to fail it if that would make you happier.  Same concept in play.

gaspode: The big guy can absolutely not ever be trusted to do the right thing without oversight and rules.


Precisely right.  I'm not saying that the current system is wrong as much as I'm merely stating that it exists.  The rules are so burdensome now that it's not really fair to think about employment or housing in terms of contract law because they're entirely different animals.
 
2013-06-13 08:33:54 PM  
Sexual orientation isn't covered by many employment non-discrimination policies.

Which is why it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being a heterosexual.
 
2013-06-13 08:37:07 PM  

vernonFL: RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that's established law.


What a weasely asshole Rubio is. The level of respect I had for Rubio just went from 0 to -1.


The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him... but if I get hired by a gay bashing religious douchebag, he can fire me. What he's looking for is protection of his own brand of bigotry... special rights.
 
2013-06-13 08:38:32 PM  

firefly212: The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him...


If he challenges the firing, just say you fired him because he's a heterosexual.
 
2013-06-13 08:39:22 PM  

firefly212: vernonFL: RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that's established law.


What a weasely asshole Rubio is. The level of respect I had for Rubio just went from 0 to -1.

The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him... but if I get hired by a gay bashing religious douchebag, he can fire me. What he's looking for is protection of his own brand of bigotry... special rights.


that's absurd. Of course you can.

Of course, maybe he hates on your for using the phrase "hates on me"? :)
 
2013-06-13 08:47:11 PM  
Why would you even consider firing someone for being gay?

I'd think a cheery disposition would be a positive in an employee.
 
2013-06-13 08:47:58 PM  
Weaver95:
tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".

oh it's pretty clear that if the GOP had their way they would strip worker protections down to nothing.  that's not even in doubt.


Like unions, "protecting the worker" is in essence stripping the worker of the right to participate in a free market for their labour.  In the absence of the current intrusive regulations scheme, the best workers would naturally be enticed to seek employment at organizations with well-known good work conditions.  Less-impressive resumes would have to tolerate less honeyed jobs, but would have an incentive for them to improve skills and qualifications.  Companies would likewise have an incentive to treat workers well and not discriminate unduly, or end up with the dregs of the workforce who had nowhere else to go.  Supply and demand, it's how a market works.  The current system is practically Stalinist in its overbearing insistence that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others".
 
2013-06-13 08:51:30 PM  
For a while I've wondered how the Republicans are going to handle 2016:  they can't really keep up the 'silent majority' bullshiat forever.  Sure, they can say it over and over, but they have to have a plan to deal with the fact that their base is shrinking.  Somewhere in their bullshiat, they have some kind of plan attempt to turn it around and market it as something vaguely appealing to people who aren't scared white people.

But there isn't.  The party itself is run by opportunists who don't believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy or really get that this 'opportunity' to gain power in this party isn't a sign of things going awry.  The only thing I can think at this point is that the GOP is like the USSR before the Berlin Wall fell:  when shiat starts going seriously sideways, then we're going to see the true collapse.  Then again, this could go on for a while.  We are talking about people who would tell you the clear sky is pink if their sponsors deemed it so.  But from what I see, the GOP is nothing more than a party dedicated to marketing, not governing, and everybody is grasping that fact.  And they are good at marketing their hatred.  I don't see many buyers, but it's hard to really break the GOP from the bigotry on multiple levels they are unashamedly pushing.
 
2013-06-13 08:54:18 PM  

skullkrusher: 12349876: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.

no, it doesn't. That's what you wish it would mean but it's really not the case for the vast majority of Mexican peasants who are coming here for work.


Then why did only 33% support McCain and Romney?  Only 45% for Dubya?  And why are they so supportive of gay marriage now? (roughly half and half)

And what about this?

A 2007 joint survey by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 percent of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal. But among second-generation U.S. Hispanics like Ana, that percentage drops to 43 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/14/us-usa-hispanics-abortion- id USTRE56D00Y20090714
 
2013-06-13 08:56:12 PM  

No Such Agency: Like unions, "protecting the worker" is in essence stripping the worker of the right to participate in a free market for their labour. In the absence of the current intrusive regulations scheme, the best workers would naturally be enticed to seek employment at organizations with well-known good work conditions. Less-impressive resumes would have to tolerate less honeyed jobs, but would have an incentive for them to improve skills and qualifications. Companies would likewise have an incentive to treat workers well and not discriminate unduly, or end up with the dregs of the workforce who had nowhere else to go. Supply and demand, it's how a market works. The current system is practically Stalinist in its overbearing insistence that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others".


Must be nice living in that fantasy world.  Those dead Bangladeshis appreciate your optimism.
 
2013-06-13 09:01:40 PM  

12349876: skullkrusher: 12349876: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.

no, it doesn't. That's what you wish it would mean but it's really not the case for the vast majority of Mexican peasants who are coming here for work.

Then why did only 33% support McCain and Romney?  Only 45% for Dubya?  And why are they so supportive of gay marriage now? (roughly half and half)

And what about this?

A 2007 joint survey by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 percent of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal. But among second-generation U.S. Hispanics like Ana, that percentage drops to 43 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/14/us-usa-hispanics-abortion- id USTRE56D00Y20090714


I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large
 
2013-06-13 09:03:23 PM  
Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
 
2013-06-13 09:05:35 PM  

skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large


One man's bigot is another's traditionalist.
 
2013-06-13 09:06:05 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Corvus: The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Like I said it doesn't give a "special right" it protects everyone from being fired based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Not just homosexuals.

He is lying.

Shows what you know, libtard.  No one has ever fired a heterosexual because they were a heterosexual.  This bill is OBVIOUISLOYUTYLY being put forth to help shove the gay agenda down the throats of viral real red blooded able bodied American men.  Right.  Down.  Their.  Throats.  All the way down, over and over until the end.


Right but if they make that argument then they are proving the point then that it's needed.
 
2013-06-13 09:10:12 PM  

Shaggy_C: Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem. Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.


The real problem here isn't preferential treatment, it's a social bias against drug use. Using psychedelic drugs as part of a religious ritual isn't a bizarre act and was common in many ancient religions. Many Western Christians just happen to be unaware of this and don't realize that the visionary experiences mentioned in the Bible were likely aided by the use of drugs.
 
2013-06-13 09:10:55 PM  
I'm sure that Log Cabin Republicans will be happy to hear that.
 
2013-06-13 09:11:08 PM  

Shaggy_C: skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large

One man's bigot is another's traditionalist.


I'm a traditionalist. I married a woman.
I don't give a fark what you do.
I'm traditional that way.
 
2013-06-13 09:11:42 PM  

No Such Agency: Weaver95:
tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".

oh it's pretty clear that if the GOP had their way they would strip worker protections down to nothing.  that's not even in doubt.

Like unions, "protecting the worker" is in essence stripping the worker of the right to participate in a free market for their labour.  In the absence of the current intrusive regulations scheme, the best workers would naturally be enticed to seek employment at organizations with well-known good work conditions.  Less-impressive resumes would have to tolerate less honeyed jobs, but would have an incentive for them to improve skills and qualifications.  Companies would likewise have an incentive to treat workers well and not discriminate unduly, or end up with the dregs of the workforce who had nowhere else to go.  Supply and demand, it's how a market works.  The current system is practically Stalinist in its overbearing insistence that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others".


What color do you paint the sky in your fantasy world created in the imagination that runs wild in the room of your parents house?
 
2013-06-13 09:12:10 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".


"That's established law.... for now"
 
2013-06-13 09:17:51 PM  

pueblonative: Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.

i have two questions for you:

1.  Is your safety helmet securely strapped on?
2.  Is a responsible adult anywhere in your general vicinity?


What part of what he said is incorrect in anyway?
 
2013-06-13 09:18:05 PM  

fusillade762: Wait, let me guess: because Jesus?


Jesus wore flowing robes, drank wine and hung out with men in flowing robes who drank wine almost exclusively except the occasional prostitute. Plus, sandals.

Boggles the mind.
 
2013-06-13 09:20:29 PM  
Well hell, I think it should be legal for me to punch Marco Rubio in the face while wearing a spiked gauntlet, but that's why we have sensible adults making laws instead of morons like me or Rubio.
 
2013-06-13 09:20:45 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: For a while I've wondered how the Republicans are going to handle 2016:  they can't really keep up the 'silent majority' bullshiat forever.  Sure, they can say it over and over, but they have to have a plan to deal with the fact that their base is shrinking.  Somewhere in their bullshiat, they have some kind of plan attempt to turn it around and market it as something vaguely appealing to people who aren't scared white people.

But there isn't.  The party itself is run by opportunists who don't believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy or really get that this 'opportunity' to gain power in this party isn't a sign of things going awry.  The only thing I can think at this point is that the GOP is like the USSR before the Berlin Wall fell:  when shiat starts going seriously sideways, then we're going to see the true collapse.  Then again, this could go on for a while.  We are talking about people who would tell you the clear sky is pink if their sponsors deemed it so.  But from what I see, the GOP is nothing more than a party dedicated to marketing, not governing, and everybody is grasping that fact.  And they are good at marketing their hatred.  I don't see many buyers, but it's hard to really break the GOP from the bigotry on multiple levels they are unashamedly pushing.


2012 was basically a wave election like 2008 -- way more votes for Democrats -- but the GOP has a lock on the House until 2020 thanks to their redistricting in 2010. Their game plan is obviously to obstruct, anger, poison the well, and constantly and deliberately push a worldview that is simply an equal and opposite reaction to whatever the most prominent Democrat is thinking or doing right then. The 2016 election will be thrown, or ruined much like the last two, then in 2020 they'll run on the fact that "Democrats are established scoundrels." The media will eat it up because they just love parroting official nonsense.

I really don't know if they'll have enough voters that buy their shiat eight years from now. But every single time I think the US can't get any dumber, I spot more people in traffic, lovingly gazing down at their cell phones, imagining I'm honking at them because they're attractive. America is turning into what failed companies feel like for the rank-and-file workers. We're a mall where the escalators have all become stairs.
 
2013-06-13 09:22:05 PM  

skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings


Then why did you come in here claiming they'd all be conservative solely because they're religious?
 
2013-06-13 09:24:24 PM  
Is it a bona-fide occupational qualification, or does it hinder job performance in some measurable way?

Then it doesn't matter whether it's a protected class or not, it's not a valid ground for firing someone, even in states that are technically at-will.  If you openly state that that's the reason you're firing someone in, for example, Texas, you can be sued for a lot of extra unemployment.

//Which is why mostly you're going to get fired without official cause in states where that's an option.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report