Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 10-03-2012, 02:50 AM   #61
due 07
haaan
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodeMonk
WTF is the matter with you?
Fire people for no reason?
You are a major fucking ****** and a complete asshole.

Go find another gene pool to pollute.

Yeah seriously...
due 07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 03:34 AM   #62
TheChaz
Scientist Salarian
 
TheChaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Monk just went HAM on that bitch. Damn. I'm feelin a little pumped up just reading that post.
TheChaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 03:48 AM   #63
WildthingJR
UGs Sociolinguist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Noviomagus
Quote:
Originally Posted by CodeMonk
Based on that statement alone...

WTF is the matter with you?
Fire people for no reason?
You are a major fucking ****** and a complete asshole.

Go find another gene pool to pollute.


Kehrpehterlism, hurrhurr!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xplozive
You sir are a dick!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toppscore
And then again, Wildthang, "You're probably NOT one of them clean Socialists, either"

Wat.
WildthingJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 04:16 AM   #64
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak

I still believe it is an employer's right to fire people for no reason whatsoever.

Could I ask why you think employers should have this right to 'unjustly discharge' someone?

Surely 'unjustly' discharging someone is by definition an 'unjust' act, so why would you support an unjust act? Do you not believe in a person's right to be treated in a 'just' way? Wasn't America built on the premise of 'Justice & liberty for all'?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 04:35 AM   #65
aCloudConnected
;________;
 
aCloudConnected's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NAU, Flagstaff, AZ
literally the worst state to live in

i'm really upset that it takes so long for the national government to do anything about all of the ridiculousness that goes on here
__________________
Tumblr
Last.fm Soundcloud MAL

Space Band
aCloudConnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 04:41 AM   #66
captaincrunk
See, I Got News for You.
 
captaincrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
Could I ask why you think employers should have this right to 'unjustly discharge' someone?

Surely 'unjustly' discharging someone is by definition an 'unjust' act, so why would you support an unjust act? Do you not believe in a person's right to be treated in a 'just' way? Wasn't America built on the premise of 'Justice & liberty for all'?

i don't think she thinks it's worth calling "unjustly"
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
I respect crunk.
captaincrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 04:52 AM   #67
ukdudeinuk
SUPREME PANT MASTER
 
ukdudeinuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: england
There is absolutely no way that this law is in agreement with HIPPA laws. NONE.
ukdudeinuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 04:59 AM   #68
lncognito
Encephalectomized
 
lncognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The ever-changing mass of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by c3powil
It's stupid from the moral standpoint, but when you consider the fact that the employer will have to pay for the employee's birth control, I can see their point. Still, I think it's stupid... unless birth control costs an ungodly amount.
But they would have to pay for it in a way anyways; the employer gives the woman the money she uses on contraceptives anyway, except now it is covered by their insurance instead. They are similarly morally responsible for the woman's behaviour either way.
Look at it this way, what if there were other aspects of their employees insurance that was immoral to them? I know some religious groups doesn't allow blood-transfusions and similar procedures. What if the employer believed any medical treatment went against the will of God - should he then have the right to deny any medical coverage in the insurance?
lncognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 05:37 AM   #69
captaincrunk
See, I Got News for You.
 
captaincrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by lncognito
But they would have to pay for it in a way anyways; the employer gives the woman the money she uses on contraceptives anyway, except now it is covered by their insurance instead. They are similarly morally responsible for the woman's behaviour either way.
Look at it this way, what if there were other aspects of their employees insurance that was immoral to them? I know some religious groups doesn't allow blood-transfusions and similar procedures. What if the employer believed any medical treatment went against the will of God - should he then have the right to deny any medical coverage in the insurance?

All he should be able to do is ask politely.
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
I respect crunk.
captaincrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 05:39 AM   #70
metalblaster
UG Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
This shit it hilarious. I've never really been fully submerged in the average american culture but this tells me I'd ****ing lol hard.

They say it's the country of freedom yet laws like this get the chance to come into question. In my opinion, you're up there with Saudi Arabia when it comes to merging religion and politics together. Congratulations.
metalblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 05:40 AM   #71
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
i don't think she thinks it's worth calling "unjustly"

'Unjustly discharged' is considered to be the correct term to use when someone has been fired from their job for no apparent reason, it doesn't matter what she thinks, that's still what it's called, which obviously defines it in a way that suggests that it's wrong to fire a person from their job for no apparent reason.
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 05:52 AM   #72
metalblaster
UG Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
'Unjustly discharged' is considered to be the correct term to use when someone has been fired from their job for no apparent reason, it doesn't matter what she thinks, that's still what it's called, which obviously defines it in a way that suggests that it's wrong to fire a person from their job for no apparent reason.

That's like when I heard an aussie here posting a while back that his dad (I forget what the thread was really about) was deemed officially ''redundant'' because he wasn't able to work. Like, shit guys, ''redundant''? really? you're pretty much telling him he doesn't ****ing matter and is basically **** all and worthless. I though Australia was a nice place where kangaroos ran amok and dingos ate peoples' babies
metalblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 06:48 AM   #73
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
 
SlackerBabbath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burnley, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalblaster
That's like when I heard an aussie here posting a while back that his dad (I forget what the thread was really about) was deemed officially ''redundant'' because he wasn't able to work. Like, shit guys, ''redundant''? really? you're pretty much telling him he doesn't ****ing matter and is basically **** all and worthless. I though Australia was a nice place where kangaroos ran amok and dingos ate peoples' babies


Yeah, but as well as meaning 'surplus to requirements', the word 'redundant' is also often used as just another word for 'out of work', so using that particular definition, he literaly was 'redundant'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lncognito
What if the employer believed any medical treatment went against the will of God - should he then have the right to deny any medical coverage in the insurance?


Interesting question, another way of looking at it is what if the employer was an atheist who employed a Jehovah's Witness, should he have the right to fire them because they don't believe in donating blood?
__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Slacker's Art Website.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath : 10-03-2012 at 06:57 AM.
SlackerBabbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:29 AM   #74
ElisabithaOak
Banned
 
ElisabithaOak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
Could I ask why you think employers should have this right to 'unjustly discharge' someone?

Surely 'unjustly' discharging someone is by definition an 'unjust' act, so why would you support an unjust act? Do you not believe in a person's right to be treated in a 'just' way? Wasn't America built on the premise of 'Justice & liberty for all'?


Because this is silly and stupid.

I'm into rights. I really am.

I feel it is the owner of a private company's right to hire and fire who they like. I don't know how else to put it.

Don't you think this is the waste of courts time?

Is the next step with this sort of 'non-discrimination at all costs, even at the cost of the right to have beliefs because that would be implying someone else is wrong' movement thinking that a company looking to hire workers has to hire anyone and everyone the government deems qualified?

The government, or I guess more accurately the courts, shouldn't be able to decide whether a firing is just. It is up to the owner's discretion- it is the owners right to decide.

In Canada we have people being taken to court wasting huge amounts of time and money over someone being called a 'fag' in a silly argument outside of a bar. Don't you think that's ridiculous? People have been arguing and name calling for thousands of years. I think a person has the right to call someone a fag... similar to the way you guys call people idiots when they state something you believe to be incorrect.

What someone doesn't have the right to do is harras another person. Which could be defined as pursuing someone in an attempt to bully them after the person has told you to leave them alone.

An employer should have the right to fire a homosexual because they are homosexual.

A person should not be legally free (don't have the right) to spray paint a persons house, continuously bother the person after they have been told to leave them alone, physically assault them etc, etc.

You see?

People have the right to think other people are behaving wrongly or immorally and they have the right to declare those beliefs publicly and privately.

for example I believe homosexual unions are immoral. ( let's go guys... or not it probably wont yield any positive results but arguing is sometimes fun so.... actually lets not go about this. If you call me homophobe or whatever in this thread I probably wont respond)


The point is that I believe I have the right to think homosexual unions are morally wrong- not that homosexuals are fundamentally flawed or inherently damned; I believe that homosexuals, like everyone else, are fundamentally good. I have the right to believe that and whatever else I want and make all and any of my decisions according to any and all of my beliefs- be that in parenting my children or running my business.

edited a couple of times. I'm proud of this.

Last edited by ElisabithaOak : 10-03-2012 at 07:42 AM.
ElisabithaOak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:41 AM   #75
Weaponized
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
US

Quote:
Originally Posted by palm mute
Seriously? Fucking seriously Debbie Lesko, Republican Majority Whip representing Glendale?

I live in Glendale

You guys crazy jealous??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazysam23_Atax
Is the officer going to ask for the butt, so he or she can check whether it is hot?


last.fm
Weaponized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:46 AM   #76
willT08
Official Classist
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: waiting for milk
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
An employer should have the right to fire a homosexual because they are homosexual.

edited a couple of times. I'm proud of this.


Wow.

What about firing people because they're black? Or Hispanic?

Racism and bigotry is fine if you have CEO after your name?
__________________
Burn into my spirit, sear into my soul
Blow me away, I say
Sweep me up like a tornado
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:51 AM   #77
ElisabithaOak
Banned
 
ElisabithaOak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Believing racist and bigoted things is a persons right.

To state beliefs publicly is their right.

As the owner of a private business it is your right to hire and fire who you will based on your beliefs.

To harass people is against the law.

Yadig the difference?
ElisabithaOak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:52 AM   #78
DisarmGoliath
Disarms Goliaths
 
DisarmGoliath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Most_Triumphant
Because it causes the employer to pay for it's employees birth control.

If you had a public health service, instead of privatised healthcare, the employer wouldn't be paying (other than through taxes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterGod
Nope, Viagra is actually something the catholic church approves of.

Yep, them old priests need a helping hand sometimes so they can... 'get a helping hand' from unwilling altar boys from time to time.
__________________

Music Stuff

Facebook - Website - YouTube

DisarmGoliath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:54 AM   #79
willT08
Official Classist
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: waiting for milk
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElisabithaOak
Believing racist and bigoted things is a persons right.

Yes.

Quote:
To state beliefs publicly is their right.

Yes.

Quote:
As the owner of a private business it is your right to hire and fire who you will based on your beliefs.

No.

I don't think any Western country allows this or makes it a right. It's your right to act how you want when it is not affecting other people.
__________________
Burn into my spirit, sear into my soul
Blow me away, I say
Sweep me up like a tornado
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 07:58 AM   #80
ElisabithaOak
Banned
 
ElisabithaOak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
^This logic is rediculous.

I disagree with government's intervening with who private business hires and fires.

Is the next step with this sort of thinking that companies are mandated to hire the first person that applies for the job whom (who?) the government deems qualified?

It's nobody right to have a job.

editorite: "affects other people" - so my right to believe something is suspended because it might offend someone who believes something diffrent? So no one is allowed to believe anything or practice their beliefs?

...but sortoff sads

Last edited by ElisabithaOak : 10-03-2012 at 08:00 AM.
ElisabithaOak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.