Another Ugly Republican

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

October 13th, 2004, 02:22 PM
jdf

Quote:

Originally posted by LAKE:
I believe Ohio is a "right to work" state. An employer can fire anyone for any reason. For the record, I think firing someone based on their sexual orientation is wrong. Goes both ways.

[ October 13, 2004 11:01 AM: Message edited by: LAKE ]

this is one reason they get away with it...I rally wish they had to have "cause" , and be able to prove it, before they could fire an individual.
October 13th, 2004, 02:26 PM
reason

Right to work means an employer can fire someone for any reason...as long as it is not the wrong reason. There are exceptions.
October 13th, 2004, 02:39 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by G L:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jumper69:
GL - you respond to reason so you are in a sense just as culpable as he is in the arguments between you two. Your ignore feature doesn't seem to be working.

reason - you could stand to tone down your rhetoric just a tad....mmmmkay?

All the rest of you need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you have such a fucking aversion to gay or lesbian people.

For the record, I don't see reason as militant. I see him as standing up for himself in asking to be treated just like everyone esle. Were is not for the the Lake's of the world, his fight would be a bit easier. MHO

OK jumper let's bring someone to the board who has a snotty comment to EVERY post you make. Let's have someone come on here who calls you gay, makes fun of your home, calls you stupid, etc etc. I could have just banned him when I was still a moderator. But I told myself, no others do like him so I'll just leave. I did. I decided to come back. I answered some of his attacks (and I find it amusing that no one seemed put out by HIS remarks to me it was only when I answered him that somehow it became an issue). And finally I put him on "ignore". I can still see he has made remarks after me all the time. Most of them I never even look at. But if I look at the board without being logged on I do see his comments. He doesn't like anti-gay remarks? Yet he felt it was OK to call me "queer", make fun of me for having an interest in a nice yard and nice flowers? saying I "swish" when I walk? saying I talk with a "lisp"? How homophobic is that? Can you answer that? What it's OK for him to say such things because he is gay? Then it's OK for African Americans to call one another "nigger" too then huh? Reason is an asshole. Not becasue he's gay, but because of how he projects himself and thinks his own shit doesn't stink. Based on his comments if he weren't gay himself he would be the most anti-gay person on the planet. I think he is anyway, he drips with self-loathing as much as Nate does.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, would you just get over it?

You just keep coming back for more as if you can't help yourself. I'll keep thinking you're gay, and you'll keep getting angry about it, and on and on it goes. And back you come again.

The fact I think you're gay is no big deal. I don't have a problem with your homosexuality, nor do I intend it as an insult.

I mention your trailer only sporadically anymore, and I don't even read most of your postings.

So stop living in the past. Accept what is and move on. You seem to have trouble doing so.

[ October 14, 2004 09:23 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 13th, 2004, 04:24 PM
reason

Quote:

saying I "swish" when I walk?

It's not so much a swish as it is a sashay.

[ October 14, 2004 08:03 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 13th, 2004, 05:26 PM
Cagliostro

It's called being an "at-will employee". An employer can fire anyone for any reason at any time so long as it isn't based on age, sex, race or ethnic affiliation. But it's a 2 way street. You can walk out on a job at any time for any reason as well. If employers had more restrictions placed upon them would it not be fair to say employees would also be more restricted? A 2 week notice would become law rather than common practice? I agree there are circumstances where employers are arbitrary and employees are unfarily terminated (hey, been there done that myself, I know!) But when an employer really wants to get rid of someone they find ways to do it, even "protected" employees. I look at it this way on every job I have ever had: I was looking for work when I started here. Not my first job and probably won't be my last....
October 13th, 2004, 05:53 PM
Lew

And to follow-up GL's thoughts, there really are no easy answers in this "right-to-work" vs. "at-will" dichotomy. The more we lean towards right-to-work, the less productive employees become. Why? Because even if the woman is lazy and unproductive, if you fire her she'll immediately launch the discrimination suit.

On the other hand, history has taught us that, absent those protections, employers do act arbitrary and capricious.

On the whole, I gravitate more towards the at-will side of the spectrum. One would hope that the market would have a huge influence on all of this.

However, I have no problem with some regulation in this area, and the justification for it can be found in the corporate welfare context. If Community A sells its soul to get a company to build a factory, including all sorts of tax breaks and what have you, then, in a way, Community A has a stake in what goes on at that company.

But like I said, there are no easy answers. And that's why we have trials.....
October 14th, 2004, 11:07 AM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by jdf:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The teacher's job is to teach the subject they're hired to do. If the gay teacher uses the class time to rant on his personal issues, I would have a huge problem with it. Same as if the teacher would go on about pro-choice or pro-life matters in an art class. I don't want my kids' teachers trying to shove their politics down their throat.

correct me if I'm wrong...but hasn't reason said that he would object to this too?<hr /></blockquote>Yes, I did.

My whole point is that we need to focus on the behavior, not the person. Gay or straight, anyone can project inappropriate behavior. To single out a gay person as being unfit for merely being gay is short sighted, unfair, and flat out wrong.
October 14th, 2004, 11:13 AM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by jdf:
wanna know somehting ELSE I put up with...

My first mother's day, being told by a former grade school teacher of mine, that the carnations at the mass were for the "regular" mothers...

am I bitter...you bet your ass I am.

I would be bitter, too.

My uncle is a priest. Actually studied in Rome with Archbishop Pylarczyck (I know I spelled that wrong). Was a Fulbright Scholar. Archbishop McNicholas once introduced him as "the future Archbishop of Cincinnati."

Upstanding guy? Yeah, in many ways. But he also exhibits some of those same shitty attitudes you mentioned above. You should have a talk with my sister in law about her wedding to my brother in the Methodist Church (she was raised strict Southern Baptist), and her brief conversion to Catholicism. She'd give you an earful. The good uncle the priest wasn't so good.

[ October 14, 2004 12:42 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 14th, 2004, 11:17 AM
jumper69

Religions, no matter how upstanding they may be in theory, are still populated and run by humans. And human beings are falliable(sp?).

I personally detest the Catholic Church, more so than I detest most other religions. But that's another thread.... hmmm??? [img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img]
October 14th, 2004, 11:20 AM
reason

I'm going to address something that trav said about being exposed to gay people while young. He has mentioned his gay cousin several times.

I was with the same person for about 5 years. Somewhere after 4 years, he was introduced to my family, and attended several family functions, where my young nieces and nephews were present. It all went off without a hitch.

I never bothered to ask how my two brothers and their wives handled it, but they made the decision to allow this gathering, and they made the decision how to address the topic matter with their children. For the most part, I trust their parenting skills and their ability to deal with this in an age appropriate manner.

From what I can tell, no one was injured in the process. If anything, it made us a closer family.

Now, my sister and her children didn't show at these gatherings because her husband objected. So she and her children missed father's day, a birthday, and Thanksgiving.

Her husband is one of those upstanding Christians who are all about family values. Family values, indeed.

Maybe this can give you a little insight regarding my short fuse on the issue.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page