Texas man refuses to teach handgun safety to Muslims and Obama Voters

[Cerpin Taxt]

smart texan

I realize that those are two actual words in the English language, but just because you can stick to words next to one another does not make them meaningful together. See "square circle," or "leftover beer."

 

[RampantAndroid]

Nope.

Does anyone actually learn about the laws involved before posting? I mean really, do you really want to look incredibly ignorant because you can't spend 2min googling the facts?

These are basic concepts of US law, it's not rocket science.

It says nothing about protecting you based on who you voted for.

I watched the first one, I want to say that is downright criminal to put such a heavy recoiling firearm in the hands of someone that does not know what they are up for. It looks like she was holding it tentatively to begin with, which is the last thing you want to do with something like that. Very irresponsible, and you can tell the guys are anticipating her shitting her pants from the recoil, in other words, they knew she wouldn't be able to handle it correctly. WTF?

I always start people on a .22. I just fired some of my .41 magnum reloads today. I normally fire bullets pushing around 1300fps. I now am firing 1600fps. NEVER. EVER would I put that gun - a 4" barrel with a small grip on it - in the hands of someone not ready for it. It hurt MY hand just to fire it. Like I said earlier: guns need a health dose of fear, and heaps of common sense added on. The people handing that gun to her should be prevented from firing guns for a long time. She should also be smacked upside the head for letting herself be pushed into doing it.

 

[J-Money]

You don't have to give a reason . Ya just say its all ready rented befor any other talk . But thats not what I was referring to . I have seen how bad renters normally the poor take care of others personnal property . $15,OOO in damages and a year to get them thrown out.

That's what he should have done and not put out an ad like this and everything would be fine.

It's the fact he said/advertised he does not do this for a specific type of person is the problem.

You can decide to not give to service to a type or person all you want because it can't be proven, but when you advertise it it is proven. Same works for hiring.

I can choose not to hire a fat guy as long as I don't say that's why. But if I say it's because he is fat I'm in shit.

 

[bhanson]

That's what he should have done and not put out an ad like this and everything would be fine.

It's the fact he said/advertised he does not do this for a specific type of person is the problem.

You can decide to not give to service to a type or person all you want because it can't be proven, but when you advertise it it is proven. Same works for hiring.

I can choose not to hire a fat guy as long as I don't say that's why. But if I say it's because he is fat I'm in shit.

In shit for what? I didn't think it was illegal to discriminate against fat people.

 

[RampantAndroid]

In shit for what? I didn't think it was illegal to discriminate against fat people.

You could likely construe it as discriminating based on disability (despite the fact that for many, it is a life choice.)

 

[J-Money]

You could likely construe it as discriminating based on disability (despite the fact that for many, it is a life choice.)

This.

There are 4 categories (in Canada) that you can not use to not hire someone.

Well, obviously you can, but if they ask why they didn't get a job you can't say why if it is in one of the 4 without major trouble.

The groups are:

1. Women
2. People with disabilities
3. Aboriginal people
4. Visible minorities

Sure, I can not hire a woman because I don't want a woman working in a job, but I can't say to her "Sorry, men only".

There are actually other things, but I don't remember them all (like religion, sexual preference, age)

 

[RampantAndroid]

This.

There are 4 categories (in Canada) that you can not use to not hire someone.

Well, obviously you can, but if they ask why they didn't get a job you can't say why if it is in one of the 4 without major trouble.

The groups are:

1. Women
2. People with disabilities
3. Aboriginal people
4. Visible minorities

Sure, I can not hire a woman because I don't want a woman working in a job, but I can't say to her "Sorry, men only".

There are actually other things, but I don't remember them all (like religion, sexual preference, age)

I wonder what happens if the job is very physical - say lots of lifting...and someone is incredibly overweight and out of shape. What the hell do you say then? :hmm:

 

[dawp]

I wonder what happens if the job is very physical - say lots of lifting...and someone is incredibly overweight and out of shape. What the hell do you say then? :hmm:

if they can't physically do the job, like someone in a wheelchair can't do heavy lifting, I would think that would qualify as a valid reason.

 

[momeNt]

I wonder what happens if the job is very physical - say lots of lifting...and someone is incredibly overweight and out of shape. What the hell do you say then? :hmm:

Something integral to your business can be used as a reason. Male waiters at Hooters, female chippendale dancers, etc.

 

[bhanson]

Here is read that I found incredibly interesting on obesity as a disability.

http://quirkyemploymentquestions.co...stion-176-obesity-disabilities-and-the-adaaa/

Some highlights:

Hill v. Verizon Maryland, Inc., 2009 - Upheld that an employer may impose a weight restriction if it is an integral part of the job. In this case the job was as a telephone repairman and the ladders had weight restrictions.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Resources for Human Development, Inc., 2010(link) - A woman was fired explicitly for her weight which was not part of any underlying medical condition. This case is still pending as far as I can tell. It seems to be a flagship case by the EEOC to get obesity classified as a disability.

There have been several cases that have sided with the employers with respect to obesity NOT being classified as a disability. However, there has yet to be a case to test the new provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act which I guess finally went into effect May 24, 2011. The new laws do not explicitly classify obesity as a disability but provide much more generous guidelines for what classifies as a disability.

My impression is that there is no definitive interpretation of the law either way at the moment--a court has the capacity to rule either way. It will probably take an employer either (1) firing someone based upon weight and get tried under the new regulations, or (2) clearly post some comment like in the OP: "obese people need not apply" and get tried under the new regulations.

-ATOTPN Armchair Lawyer

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

It says nothing about protecting you based on who you voted for.

I guess you didn't bother to read the part where he refuses to teach all Muslims?

 

[Macamus Prime]

This coming from the same state that wants to go around and shoot wild donkeys,...

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-shooting-donkeys-stirring-burro-backlash-070230723.html

My main concern is; how will they ensure they don't shoot the jackasses that pass for Texans?

 

[Nebor]

This coming from the same state that wants to go around and shoot wild donkeys,...

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-shooting-donkeys-stirring-burro-backlash-070230723.html

My main concern is; how will they ensure they don't shoot the jackasses that pass for Texans?

The donkey's don't eat a bunch of shit. Us Texas usually have it smeared around our mouths. :thumbsup: