Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    End. Of. Thread.
    Not so fast Skippy.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I think we've learned that if a restaurant's food is good, people really don't care about the politics of the company's CEO.
    If that is all you learned, you weren't paying attention. The lesson for moonbats and other knuckleheads that act like children and force their agenda down the majority of American's throats, had better be prepared for the monumental smackdown from that population.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Chick-fil-A's Anti Gay Problem and Potential Future Discrimination Lawsuits

    Posted on Aug 4, 2012 12:36am PDT
    Chick-fil-A Could Be Jumping Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire

    Chick-fil-A has created a significant risk for themselves in any future employment discrimination claims based on sexual orientation because it will be hard for them to argue that an anti-gay culture does not exist within the company from the top to bottom.

    At-Will Employees May Be Terminated Without Cause But Not For Discriminatory Reasons

    Unless you're a member of a Labor Union, or have negotiated an employment contract with your employer, you are probably an at-will employee which means that you or your employer can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason and with or without notice. In other words, an at-will employer does not have to have "good cause" to terminate an employee.

    Judicial interpretation, however, of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to evolve placing sexual orientation into the group of protected class of workers along with other familiar ones including race, sex, and religion. Many states have also passed their own legislation protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means that adverse employment decisions based on an employee's sexual orientation is unlawful discrimination. Simply put, any adverse employment decision by Chick-fil-A against a gay employee would be illegal. An adverse employment decision could be failing to promote an otherwise qualified gay employee, punitive transfers or shift changes, any kind of discipline or wrongful termination. If the employment action is based in any part on an employee's gay status, it is illegal.

    Typically, in an employment discrimination or wrongful termination claim based on protected class, a defendant employer will almost always argue the adverse employment decision was made because of an employee's poor performance and not the fact that the employee was gay, or black or pregnant, or muslim. Discriminated employees have a tough time at trial proving that the employer cultivated a discriminatory environment against a particular protected class. Often times an employer's denial is persuasive, at the Widget Company we would never fire an employee because they are gay. The problem for Chick-fil-A as a result of the current controversy is they've done a lot of the work for a potential plaintiff who may file a claim for discrimination or hostile work environment based on sexual orientation. Chick-fil-A's protestations in the event of future discrimination claims by gay employees, that Chick-fil-A would never discriminate against gay employees could well ring hollow for many jurors. There are a reported 1600 Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, with thousands of employees. Some of them are gay. What happens when they decide they're no longer going to keep their sexual orientation a private matter?

    http://www.angellawpc.com/Portland-P...tial-Futu.aspx
    What BS. All that the Left was able to dig up was all of twelve discrimination suits against CfA over the last sixteen years. Have you any clue how many discrimination suits get filed against similarly-sized employers in the US? Hundreds. Per year.

    You've got nothing because you're not going to get anything. CfA, as noted weeeelllllll before this latest kerfluffle came along, is careful to ensure that they do not subject themselves to these frivolous (and 99% of them ARE frivolous) suits just so that some idiotic activist organization can't come along and sue them out of existence, which you no doubt would love to do.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    What BS. All that the Left was able to dig up was all of twelve discrimination suits against CfA over the last sixteen years. Have you any clue how many discrimination suits get filed against similarly-sized employers in the US? Hundreds. Per year.

    You've got nothing because you're not going to get anything. CfA, as noted weeeelllllll before this latest kerfluffle came along, is careful to ensure that they do not subject themselves to these frivolous (and 99% of them ARE frivolous) suits just so that some idiotic activist organization can't come along and sue them out of existence, which you no doubt would love to do.
    I'd be willing to bet every dollar you have that in all 12 cases, the employee was fired for conduct not involving their sexual orientation.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,050
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    But isn't this tantamount to a separate-but-equal argument?
    whiskey-tango-foxtrot,,,,over?




    They want the same "rights' as married people, right?


    Keep swallowing the kool-aid there bud....
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    whiskey-tango-foxtrot,,,,over?




    They want the same "rights' as married people, right?


    Keep swallowing the kool-aid there bud....
    Yes. And if you have two sets of rules for different groups of people that are supposed to convey equivalent rights, this is a separate-but-equal situation. It just is. Whether or not you think gays should have equal rights is a different matter (most people on this board would say "no"). But I don't accept civil unions because it's a separate-but-equal proposition. Either they deserve full marriage rights same as heterosexual couples, or they don't. That's where the debate lies in my mind.

    Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage. All I'm saying is that civil unions is not a legitimate solution. If they deserve equal rights, they deserve marriage as defined by government. If they do not deserve equal rights, then they deserve no recognition for their living situation. A right either exists or it doesn't.
    Last edited by m00; 08-08-2012 at 12:40 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Yes. And if you have two sets of rules for different groups of people that are supposed to convey equivalent rights, this is a separate-but-equal situation. It just is. Whether or not you think gays should have equal rights is a different matter (most people on this board would say "no"). But I don't accept civil unions because it's a separate-but-equal proposition. Either they deserve full marriage rights same as heterosexual couples, or they don't. That's where the debate lies in my mind.

    Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage. All I'm saying is that civil unions is not a legitimate solution. If they deserve equal rights, they deserve marriage as defined by government. If they do not deserve equal rights, then they deserve no recognition for their living situation. A right either exists or it doesn't.
    If 2 gays go into a willing church and get married, no cops will jump out of the bushes and arrest everyone present. But in case I missed something, locate the amendment in the Constitution that proclaims marriage by anyone is a right. I'll wait.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    If 2 gays go into a willing church and get married, no cops will jump out of the bushes and arrest everyone present. But in case I missed something, locate the amendment in the Constitution that proclaims marriage by anyone is a right. I'll wait.
    You should re-read my post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    You should re-read my post.
    Still doesn't show me where marriage is a right. Until it does, then gays continue to have the same rights I have, which they do.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    Let me break it down so maybe you'll understand: who has the right to marry someone of the same sex, gays or heterosexuals?
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    But in case I missed something, locate the amendment in the Constitution that proclaims marriage by anyone is a right. I'll wait.
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Still doesn't show me where marriage is a right. Until it does, then gays continue to have the same rights I have, which they do.
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Whether or not you think gays should have equal rights is a different matter (most people on this board would say "no").
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Either they deserve full marriage rights same as heterosexual couples, or they don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Now I'm not judging the merits of the argument that gays or should or shouldn't have equal rights to marriage.
    Show me where exactly in my post I claimed marriage is a constitutional right? The fact is, there are laws defining marriage between one man and one woman. Specifically, the law grants rights and privileges to heterosexual couples. This is what laws do -- laws afford me all sorts of rights that aren't in the constitution. In other cases, they may restrict and qualify other rights granted by other laws or the US constitution.

    I am not judging the merits of whether or not the specific rights conferred by marriage laws ought to be extended to homosexual couples

    I am just saying that civil unions make no sense, because either marriage laws either ought to cover gays, or ought to not cover gays. I don't see a moral argument for a middle ground.

    I don't know how I can be more clear on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •