Should your boss be able to fire an employee for using birth control?

[norseamd]

I'm pretty sure Republicans would support all those except for the one in which a Muslim was allowed to do it.

For the most part since they are currently pandering to the White American Christian fundamentalists.

 

[Moonbeam]

OK I think we are on the same page then. The law itself was kind of pointless but the Republicans were worried about what could stem from it?

My thoughts on this are: meh

EDIT:

Have you ever read "This Present Darkness"? If not, its worth a read. It will give you an idea of why we Right Wing Nut Jobs fight so hard on small issues.

WIKI: "The novel has been the subject of both literary and theological criticism. On literary grounds several reviewers such as Irving Hexham and James R. Lewis suggest that the novel fits into the genre of horror. Reviewers such as Steve Rabey and Michael Maudlin appreciate the novel's complex multi-layered plot. However, they find the novel's characters typecast in simplistic roles of good versus evil. Other criticisms raised concern redundant passages in the novel, stilted dialogue and poor grammar.

Authority figures within the disciplines of Christian missions, such as A. Scott Moreau and Paul Hiebert, detect a dualist cosmology in the novels that is influenced by Zoroastrian and mystery religion myths. These critics also argue that the novel's depiction of angelic-demonic combat and spiritual warfare techniques are tinged with animist ideas. Ross Clifford and Philip S. Johnson claim that the conspiracy theory employed in the novel rests on a discredited interpretation of New Age.

The New Testament scholar Robert Guelich finds the biblical metaphor of spiritual warfare has nothing to do with combat with demons, and argues that the novel's view of spiritual warfare is seriously at odds with those passages in the gospel accounts and Paul's epistles that refer to spiritual conflict and demons. J. Lanier Burns faults the novel in its weak understanding of personal responsibility for evil and sin, and a correspondingly poor sense of God's sovereignty."

My criticism would be that on my list things to do, reading it doesn't appear.

 

[cbrunny]

wtf happened in this thread? is it cool now to have no rights at all?

 

[rudeguy]

WIKI: "The novel has been the subject of both literary and theological criticism. On literary grounds several reviewers such as Irving Hexham and James R. Lewis suggest that the novel fits into the genre of horror. Reviewers such as Steve Rabey and Michael Maudlin appreciate the novel's complex multi-layered plot. However, they find the novel's characters typecast in simplistic roles of good versus evil. Other criticisms raised concern redundant passages in the novel, stilted dialogue and poor grammar.

Authority figures within the disciplines of Christian missions, such as A. Scott Moreau and Paul Hiebert, detect a dualist cosmology in the novels that is influenced by Zoroastrian and mystery religion myths. These critics also argue that the novel's depiction of angelic-demonic combat and spiritual warfare techniques are tinged with animist ideas. Ross Clifford and Philip S. Johnson claim that the conspiracy theory employed in the novel rests on a discredited interpretation of New Age.

The New Testament scholar Robert Guelich finds the biblical metaphor of spiritual warfare has nothing to do with combat with demons, and argues that the novel's view of spiritual warfare is seriously at odds with those passages in the gospel accounts and Paul's epistles that refer to spiritual conflict and demons. J. Lanier Burns faults the novel in its weak understanding of personal responsibility for evil and sin, and a correspondingly poor sense of God's sovereignty."

My criticism would be that on my list things to do, reading it doesn't appear.

Just trying to give him a look into how some of us think. Especially in regards to laws. It really is worth a read if you have a couple hours and $6 to spare.

 

[norseamd]

WIKI: "The novel has been the subject of both literary and theological criticism. On literary grounds several reviewers such as Irving Hexham and James R. Lewis suggest that the novel fits into the genre of horror. Reviewers such as Steve Rabey and Michael Maudlin appreciate the novel's complex multi-layered plot. However, they find the novel's characters typecast in simplistic roles of good versus evil. Other criticisms raised concern redundant passages in the novel, stilted dialogue and poor grammar.

Authority figures within the disciplines of Christian missions, such as A. Scott Moreau and Paul Hiebert, detect a dualist cosmology in the novels that is influenced by Zoroastrian and mystery religion myths. These critics also argue that the novel's depiction of angelic-demonic combat and spiritual warfare techniques are tinged with animist ideas. Ross Clifford and Philip S. Johnson claim that the conspiracy theory employed in the novel rests on a discredited interpretation of New Age.

The New Testament scholar Robert Guelich finds the biblical metaphor of spiritual warfare has nothing to do with combat with demons, and argues that the novel's view of spiritual warfare is seriously at odds with those passages in the gospel accounts and Paul's epistles that refer to spiritual conflict and demons. J. Lanier Burns faults the novel in its weak understanding of personal responsibility for evil and sin, and a correspondingly poor sense of God's sovereignty."

My criticism would be that on my list things to do, reading it doesn't appear.

My guess is that the book is more reflective of contemporary Evangelicalism than theological Christianity.

 

[rudeguy]

My guess is that the book is more reflective of contemporary Evangelicalism than theological Christianity.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why do you post about things you are completely uninformed on?

Tell us again how filing for an LLC makes your company public. Or maybe how the power company should shut off all power if they think a thunderstorm is coming.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I am shocked how many people feel its fine to give up rights and privacy for vague goals. Work is involved in our lives enough, its not works place to be in your home or in you personal decisions or bedroom.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Anyone should be able to fire anybody for any reason, no questions asked.

Private companies are private and not anyone else's business.

Would I knowingly patronize a place for doing that? Probably not.

Where does this end? Fired for dating someone, fired for not being married? Fired for not trying a faith based cancer treatment? Fired for being over 50? Fired for bringing a ham sandwich to work on Good Friday? Fired for not buying company stock? Fired for driving a Korea car? Fired because you won't eat organic food? Fired because you don't own a gun? Fired because you do own a gun? Fired because you went to Disney World? Fired because you're kids baseball team lost? Fired because you won't have gay sex with your boss? Fired because you're wife won't blow your boss?

 

[cbrunny]

Fired because you wont vote for a particular person/party?



Any time a company fires someone for reasons that have nothing to do with performance, they should be sued or have an agreement on severance pay.

 

[brandonb]

Fired because you wont vote for a particular person/party?



Any time a company fires someone for reasons that have nothing to do with performance, they should be sued or have an agreement on severance pay.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Should you be able to quit your job without warning at any time? Why does the employer have to bring more to the table? Do you have to pay severance back to the employer if you decide to quit?

/boggle

 

[cbrunny]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Should you be able to quit your job without warning at any time? Why does the employer have to bring more to the table? Do you have to pay severance back to the employer if you decide to quit?

/boggle

Is that a serious question? The employee/employer relationship is not a 1:1 equal footing super best friendship.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

at will employment is pure, unadulterated bullshit. as is the chance that someone could be fired because they used oral contraception.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Should you be able to quit your job without warning at any time? Why does the employer have to bring more to the table? Do you have to pay severance back to the employer if you decide to quit?

/boggle

Brandon I'm just going to to talk in vague terms because you want an argument. Sell the idea to women that they are employed as long as they agree to give the boss a BJ every Monday & Friday or someone who is older that they're employed as long as they're under 50 and healthy.
Long ago companies had the right to terminate at anytime without reason required. They proved that having that power they will abuse it this is how we arrived at this point.

 

[brandonb]

Is that a serious question? The employee/employer relationship is not a 1:1 equal footing super best friendship.

Yes, it's a serious question. Apparently you are too stupid to realize it.

And employee/employer relationship is a contract... In contract law, both sides have to in good faith complete their end of the bargain, otherwise they are considered in breach.

If you had some siders working on your house, and complete half the job. Are you as their employer required to pay them for services? Do they need to refund your money if they did quit?

It's an employee/employer relationship. But in the above case, it's not at-will and how will play out is based upon the contract that is signed by both parties.

The point of at-will is to prevent wishy-washy agreements over long term employment where it's impossible to create a contract as there is always a moving target. But the point is: Employer can fire your ass when they want, and you can quit at any time without a breach of contract.

But with your warped sense of reality, only one side is required to be in breach of contract - and is liable for severance. Thankfully, your stupidity isn't part of law.

 

[cbrunny]

Yes, it's a serious question. Apparently you are too stupid to realize it.

You're a goddamn asshole. I stopped reading here. I don't have time for pieces of shit like you.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Thank you for clarifying Brandon. You're not as loony as I thought.

 

[brandonb]

You're a goddamn asshole. I stopped reading here. I don't have time for pieces of shit like you.

Ahhh... The liberal attack and run routine when they have no position.

 

[ivwshane]

Using your retarded example: let's say the siders are almost finished and so far have done a good job, however while they were working on your house you overhear one of their conversations and you find out that one of them has premarital sex and uses condoms because he's already had to pay for one abortion. Are you still allowed to fire them? What part of the "contract" did they violate?

Yes, it's a serious question. Apparently you are too stupid to realize it.

And employee/employer relationship is a contract... In contract law, both sides have to in good faith complete their end of the bargain, otherwise they are considered in breach.

If you had some siders working on your house, and complete half the job. Are you as their employer required to pay them for services? Do they need to refund your money if they did quit?

It's an employee/employer relationship. But in the above case, it's not at-will and how will play out is based upon the contract that is signed by both parties.

The point of at-will is to prevent wishy-washy agreements over long term employment where it's impossible to create a contract as there is always a moving target. But the point is: Employer can fire your ass when they want, and you can quit at any time without a breach of contract.

But with your warped sense of reality, only one side is required to be in breach of contract - and is liable to severance. Thankfully, your stupidity isn't part of law.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This is how capitalism becomes feudalism.

 

[brandonb]

Using your retarded example: let's say the siders are almost finished and so far have done a good job, however while they were working on your house you overhear one of their conversations and you find out that one of them has premarital sex and uses condoms because he's already had to pay for one abortion. Are you still allowed to fire them? What part of the "contract" did they violate?

You can fire them. But in contract court, the home owner will lose and will be required to pay them for their services. There was not a material breach in the contract. Again, the siding company did the job in good faith and the home owner is liable. But there was a contract.

It's different for at-will employment. Which is a contract that says "there is no contract terms."

 

[piasabird]

Well if you go to work some place that has a morality clause in the employment contract then the answer might be yes. A privately held Religious institution might hire a person and have certain standards they require. So if you don't like their standards of conduct, get a job somewhere else. So how do they find out you take birth control anyway?

 

[piasabird]

Think about this. Nowadays, all companies have to say is you don't fit their profile or their cultural norms and they can fire you. Say one stupid thing on Facebook and you are history.

 

[dainthomas]

Tell us again how filing for an LLC makes your company public.

So you didn't read berserker60's excellent reply to this question?

 

[Mandres]

In my professional experience valuable, productive employees don't get fired for any reason - especially something as specious as their contraceptive practices.

And throwing up more walls that make it harder (realistically just more expensive/more paperwork involved) to fire non-valuable employees is inefficient.

 

[CountZero]

No, it has nothing to do with that.

The bottom line is that you do not have a fundamental right to be employed and businesses do not exist for the sole purpose of employing you.

If your business is incorporated and thus enjoying all protections/rights that is granted to your business by the government then they have every right to regulate how you run your business. This includes preventing discrimination, pollution, collusion, etc.

On the other hand if you are unincorporated (hence you are personally responsible for all liabilities instead of having a legal entity be responsible) then I suppose I could support you firing whoever you want.

But you can't have it both ways.