Page 2 of 5
#41
Quote by SteveHouse
Mind pointing it out for the rest of us?



More costs for the employer means less incentive to hire someone who takes birth control. But I just read the article and found out it's more about morals and stuff.


Edit: I don't particularly agree with the law that makes birth control mandatory, but there is a passage from the Bible that says to obey the laws of the land. If these employers really know their stuff, they should know that and stop making such a ruckus about it.
...it was bright as the sun, but with ten times the heat
Last edited by c3powil at Oct 3, 2012,
#42
Actually I have no problem with this from an initial assessment. A private business should be able to turn down/not support birth control if it's against their beliefs. I think any reasonable/half-way competent business would never even come across this issue.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#43
Quote by Xiaoxi
Actually I have no problem with this from an initial assessment. A private business should be able to turn down/not support birth control if it's against their beliefs. I think any reasonable/half-way competent business would never even come across this issue.

A business can't be on birth control.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#44
Quote by Xiaoxi
Actually I have no problem with this from an initial assessment. A private business should be able to turn down/not support birth control if it's against their beliefs. I think any reasonable/half-way competent business would never even come across this issue.

the law essentially forces women to turn over medical records. why should she have to share that information with her employer? specifically information about birth control
#45
Quote by SteveHouse
A business can't be on birth control.

Psh, sure, tell that to Candy on the corner of 3rd and E.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#46
Sometimes I can't believe Im from Arizona...
For your sake I hope heaven & hell are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath.




Guitar & skateboarding. Do what you want.
#47
I believe an employer should have the right to fire people for no reason at all.
It's a private company is it not?
#48
Quote by ElisabithaOak
I believe an employer should have the right to fire people for no reason at all.
It's a private company is it not?

the law essentially forces women to turn over medical records. why should she have to share that information with her employer? specifically information about birth control
#49
Arizona is the new Georgia. There, I said it.

I wager these people coming up with this shit aren't people who ever stray out of their narrow, ignorant-full comfort zones.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#50
Quote by captaincrunk
the law essentially forces women to turn over medical records. why should she have to share that information with her employer? specifically information about birth control


This.

Guys the issue isn't what they can or cannot be fired over, it's the whole, giving their medical records to complete strangers. Like, being forced to. That is monumentally ****ed up, a complete and total breach of privacy.

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#52
Quote by ElisabithaOak
I believe an employer should have the right to fire people for no reason at all.
It's a private company is it not?



You're a moron.
Check out my band Disturbed
#54
Quote by ElisabithaOak
oh.

Is that all?



Probably not. I'm sure we'll see more asinine opinions crop up here and there.
Check out my band Disturbed
#55
As an Arizona citizen, I am quite aware we are crazy.

But this article is completely sensationalist. Where is anyone getting that an employer can fire anyone? It's in the title of this article you've linked, but no where in the text of the article.

Let's all put our big boy hats on and do a little research.

First, the bill does not allow an employer to fire anyone over this. Only to deny insurance coverage for any contraception against the employers religious views.

Secondly, this applies to religiously affiliated employers. For example, places that only employ people of a certain faith (churches, etc.), serves people of a certain faith, non-profits.

Thirdly, it actually does not allow the employer to acquire any protected health information (honestly I don't know enough medical records to know what exactly this protects, but it sounds good?).


So there ya'll go. Look a little closer and it isn't so crazy after all.


P.S. I think the bill is stupid, but... it's not a law that applies to anyone and everyone.

Sauce.
I have a huge fear if rays.
#56
Quote by captaincrunk
the law essentially forces women to turn over medical records. why should she have to share that information with her employer? specifically information about birth control


I agree that forcing people to turn over medical records to a company is weird and probably not necessary to have a job.

Is the Arizona government forcing every person to turn over their medical records to have a job?

My first post was a reply to the title of the thread.

I still believe it is an employer's right to fire people for no reason whatsoever.
#57
Quote by ChrisBW
As an Arizona citizen, I am quite aware we are crazy.

But this article is completely sensationalist. Where is anyone getting that an employer can fire anyone? It's in the title of this article you've linked, but no where in the text of the article.

Let's all put our big boy hats on and do a little research.

First, the bill does not allow an employer to fire anyone over this. Only to deny insurance coverage for any contraception against the employers religious views.

Secondly, this applies to religiously affiliated employers. For example, places that only employ people of a certain faith (churches, etc.), serves people of a certain faith, non-profits.

Thirdly, it actually does not allow the employer to acquire any protected health information (honestly I don't know enough medical records to know what exactly this protects, but it sounds good?).


So there ya'll go. Look a little closer and it isn't so crazy after all.


P.S. I think the bill is stupid, but... it's not a law that applies to anyone and everyone.

Sauce.

Yeah whatever go back to turning away immigrants and strip searching mexicans for citizenship proof, science boy.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#58
Quote by StewieSwan
Probably not. I'm sure we'll see more asinine opinions crop up here and there.


Make sure to keep me informed of what you think.
#59
Quote by Kensai
Yeah whatever go back to turning away immigrants and strip searching mexicans for citizenship proof, science boy.


According to my conversations with God, this so called "science" you heathens speak of is a centuries long conspiracy to bring down the church.
I have a huge fear if rays.
#60
Quote by ElisabithaOak
I agree that forcing people to turn over medical records to a company is weird and probably not necessary to have a job.

Is the Arizona government forcing every person to turn over their medical records to have a job?

My first post was a reply to the title of the thread.

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


Based on that statement alone...



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

Go find another gene pool to pollute.
Last edited by CodeMonk at Oct 3, 2012,
#61
Quote by CodeMonk
WTF is the matter with you?
Fire people for no reason?
You are a major fucking retard and a complete asshole.

Go find another gene pool to pollute.

Yeah seriously...
#62
Monk just went HAM on that bitch. Damn. I'm feelin a little pumped up just reading that post.
#63
Quote by CodeMonk
Based on that statement alone...

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

Go find another gene pool to pollute.


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

Wat.
#64
Quote 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'?
#65
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
#66
Quote 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"
#67
There is absolutely no way that this law is in agreement with HIPPA laws. NONE.
#68
Quote 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?
#69
Quote 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.
#70
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.
#71
Quote 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.
#72
Quote 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
#73
Quote 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 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?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 3, 2012,
#74
Quote 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 at Oct 3, 2012,
#75
Quote by palm mute
Seriously? Fucking seriously Debbie Lesko, Republican Majority Whip representing Glendale?

I live in Glendale

You guys crazy jealous??
#76
Quote 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?
#77
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?
#78
Quote 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 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.
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#79
Quote by ElisabithaOak
Believing racist and bigoted things is a persons right.

Yes.

To state beliefs publicly is their right.

Yes.

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.
#80
^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 at Oct 3, 2012,