Defending the Truth

tristanrobin · 11-12-2007, 08:22 AM

a. this isn't about HIRING - it's about FIRING

b. I don't believe that the 'right' to cause great harm on a person and/or his family is all that big a part of our liberty.

fxashun · 11-12-2007, 08:36 AM

This is just what I was talking about...
I was trying to think about a privately owned LARGE company and I finally thought of one. I think Chick-Fil-A is a privately owned still. It is the only fast food business that I know of that is closed on Sunday because of religious conviction. I wonder how they would feel about being forced to hire homosexual people or as our ignore king pointed out, not being able to fire someone who they discover is gay, even though it seems it's a company policy not to hire gay people due to religious reasons?

I've seen where they don't hire gay people, but the links are 7 years old. I'm still checking.

Some company principles...
Steps To Success - Part Two

mytmouse57 · 11-12-2007, 10:06 AM

I think employers should stay the hell out of employees' private lives unless and until it affects their work performance.

(Which, btw, is also why I'm against random drug testing -- except for people like pilots or those operating heavy equipment, of course.)

tristanrobin · 11-12-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

I think employers should stay the hell out of employees' private lives unless and until it affects their work performance.

(Which, btw, is also why I'm against random drug testing -- except for people like pilots or those operating heavy equipment, of course.)

exactly

I feel the same way

fxashun · 11-12-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

I think employers should stay the hell out of employees' private lives unless and until it affects their work performance.

(Which, btw, is also why I'm against random drug testing -- except for people like pilots or those operating heavy equipment, of course.)

And I disagree. I think drugs should be legalized. But so should random testing. If a private employer doesn't want to employ druggies/smokers/drinkers, they shouldn't be forced to.

That's why I draw a distinction between a publicly traded company and one that is privately held. IMHO a person who owns his own business should let the market decide if their business practices are fair or unfair. I mean if we are gonna fight for individual's "rights", isn't one of the primary American rights private business ownership with little meddling from the government?

mytmouse57 · 11-12-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

And I disagree. I think drugs should be legalized. But so should random testing. If a private employer doesn't want to employ druggies/smokers/drinkers, they shouldn't be forced to.

That's why I draw a distinction between a publicly traded company and one that is privately held. IMHO a person who owns his own business should let the market decide if their business practices are fair or unfair. I mean if we are gonna fight for individual's "rights", isn't one of the primary American rights private business ownership with little meddling from the government?

I agree with you regarding the distinction between privately held and publicly traded.

In a way, who you hire could almost be seen as a form of free expression.

So, a business run by a gay couple might not want to hire any religious conservatives... likewise, a Neo-Nazi business owner might want to hire only Whites.

In any case, the market will probably decide their fate.

pensacola_niceman · 11-12-2007, 11:40 AM

Could you imagine being a gay, black, neo-nazi and demanding equal treatment?

tristanrobin · 11-12-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

In a way, who you hire could almost be seen as a form of free expression.

Only in "a way" - free expression should not include the right to destroy a person's livelihood.

So, a business run by a gay couple might not want to hire any religious conservatives... likewise, a Neo-Nazi business owner might want to hire only Whites.

This isn't about HIRING. It's about employees who are (presumably) doing a good job for their employer, and fired at a later date when it's found out that they are gay.

In any case, the market will probably decide their fate.

I don't think that should be an issue. First, most of 'the public' will never know. But, more importantly, their fate is tied to the life/lives they've destroyed. They shouldn't have the right to do that because of ignorance and/or prejudice. I don't care if it IS religious in basis. All Americans should have the right to employment when doing a good - or even competent - job for their employer.

garysher · 11-12-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

I don't think that should be an issue. First, most of 'the public' will never know. But, more importantly, their fate is tied to the life/lives they've destroyed. They shouldn't have the right to do that because of ignorance and/or prejudice. I don't care if it IS religious in basis. All Americans should have the right to employment when doing a good - or even competent - job for their employer.

You must be living in a fantasyland.

What about the millions of people who lose their jobs due to downsizing, outsourcing, a business downturn or an economic recession?

It happens every day to people who are doing a competent job.

In America almost all employment is "at will" for both employer and employee.

pensacola_niceman · 11-12-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

You must be living in a fantasyland.

What about the millions of people who lose their jobs due to downsizing, outsourcing, a business downturn or an economic recession?

It happens every day to people who are doing a competent job.

In America almost all employment is "at will" for both employer and employee.

But if you're gay, you must be protected from all this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode