Alan Keyes daughter is gay

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Katherine:
I’m guessing that your ideal government is quite a fascist regime!

Fiat

Fascism (also known as Corporatist) would do exactly what you seem to be endorsing. Where the bosses can control every aspect of an employee’s life. I have noproblem saying I firmly reject this. I beleive it is morally wrong for an employer to fire a sober, able and productive employee simply because an employer’s personal morality objects to all drinking and an employee has an occassional beer on a non-work day.

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

Fascism (also known as Corporatist) would do exactly what you seem to be endorsing. Where the bosses can control every aspect of an employee’s life. I have noproblem saying I firmly reject this. I beleive it is morally wrong for an employer to fire a sober, able and productive employee simply because an employer’s personal morality objects to all drinking and an employee has an occassional beer on a non-work day.

Katherine2:
You amuse me considerably! Again, I think you have no idea what the Constitution says or means. I recommend you do a google search or go to your nearest library to read the U.S. Constitution and also find out how the courts (both Federal and State) interpret “privacy.” Secondly, do you observe the irony in your assertion. You think it is morally wrong for an employer to fire someone because of behavior for which the employer may have a personal objection. You think it is immoral for that employer to impose his morality on the employee. Your solution?? Impose YOUR morality on the employer which forbids him imposing a morality on someone else.

Keep the jokes coming…and perhaps start thinking of solutions you could offer the courts in policing employers under your system.

Fiat

 

[bapcathluth]

I completely agree with Katherine here. I don’t know why you would say she is ignorant of the constitution since what she is stating is normal practice right now.

Take for instance the company that has been in the news lately that has said it will fire anybody who is a smoker. They aren’t just going to fire people who smoke on the job, but people who smoke at home. There is a big brouhaha and this case is going to court. If it were so cut and dried, as you state, we wouldn’t have heard about this case at all.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Katherine2:
You think it is morally wrong for an employer to fire someone because of behavior for which the employer may have a personal objection. You think it is immoral for that employer to impose his morality on the employee. Your solution?? Impose YOUR morality on the employer which forbids him imposing a morality on someone else.
Fiat

You flawed premise is that by employing someone, a boss is endorsing all of the actions of the worker’s personal life. That’s a false premise and therefore the boss is suffering no imposition on his morality.

 

[Fiat]

bapcathluth:

I completely agree with Katherine here. I don’t know why you would say she is ignorant of the constitution since what she is stating is normal practice right now.

Take for instance the company that has been in the news lately that has said it will fire anybody who is a smoker. They aren’t just going to fire people who smoke on the job, but people who smoke at home. There is a big brouhaha and this case is going to court. If it were so cut and dried, as you state, we wouldn’t have heard about this case at all.

Ok. I see that you could benefit from a brief lesson in U.S. Civics, along with Katherine2. The U.S. Constitution is applicable ONLY at the federal level and against the U.S. Congress. We know this because the Constitution says so. The document starts off saying, “Congress shall make no law…” It does not say “IBM shall make no law.” It does not say, “McDonalds shall make no law…” The reason the founders of our nation did this, was because in 1776, no one was really interested in having a powerful Federal Government. After all, we had just escaped from a despotic British throne. Instead, State’s rights were more important. The idea was that we should have limited Federal involvement. The real governmental action would take place at the state level!

The issue of slavery began to change this view in some respects, and in order to make some of the rights which were granted at the Federal level applicable to the states, the U.S. Congress had to amend the U.S. Constitution.

In recent years, there has been much civil rights legislation, and the question has always been to what extent that legislation should be applied in the private sphere of our lives as Americans. Note that in the U.S., we literally have thousands of different governments: one fedearl, fifty states; thousands of municipal, etc. We also have individual privacy. The questions becomes what right one form of government has to insert its nose into the real of another form of government.

Should a small business owner who runs a two-man accounting firm in the basement of his house really be required to comply with the federal laws of employment? Legislators and the courts have repeatedly said no! Likewise, should a person who owns one rental house really be mandated to install a certain number of handicap parking spaces and wheel chair acccessible bathrooms? Legislators and the courts have repeatedly said no. The burden would be too great!

Katherine2 seems not to care. She is willing to trample on the PRIVACY of individuals in order to promote her political agenda. This is simply unreasonable and…well…fascist.

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

In recent years, there has been much civil rights legislation, and the question has always been to what extent that legislation should be applied in the private sphere of our lives as Americans. Should a small business owner who runs a two-man accounting firm in the basement of his house really be required to comply with the federal laws of employment? The courts have repeatedly said no!

The courts have said no? I’m not sure what federal law you are referring to. The Civil Rights Act does not apply to an employer of a two man accounting firm so I don’t see how the courts would have every ruled on this. Can you provide a federal case citation for a court ruling on a three or even five employee business?

Or these just more made up assertions?

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

You flawed premise is that by employing someone, a boss is endorsing all of the actions of the worker’s personal life. That’s a false premise and therefore the boss is suffering no imposition on his morality.

Actually, that’s not my presumption at all, Katherine2!

Fiat

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

The courts have said no? I’m not sure what federal law you are referring to. The Civil Rights Act does not apply to an employer of a two man accounting firm so I don’t see how the courts would have every ruled on this. Can you provide a federal case citation for a court ruling on a three or even five employee business?

Or these just more made up assertions?

Here’s a start, Katherine2:

1. People v. Grochocki, 343 Ill. App. 3d 664
2. Citizens Utility Bd., v. Ill. Comm., 315 Ill. App 3d 928
3. Wirtz Realty Corp. v. Freund, 721 N.E.2d 589
4. Habitat Co., v. McClure, 703 N.E. 2d 578

Careful with your legal questions, K2. I may need to bill you.

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

The courts have said no? I’m not sure what federal law you are referring to. The Civil Rights Act does not apply to an employer of a two man accounting firm so I don’t see how the courts would have every ruled on this. Can you provide a federal case citation for a court ruling on a three or even five employee business?

Or these just more made up assertions?

Here’s a start, Katherine2:

1. People v. Grochocki, 343 Ill. App. 3d 664
2. Citizens Utility Bd., v. Ill. Comm., 315 Ill. App 3d 928
3. Wirtz Realty Corp. v. Freund, 721 N.E.2d 589
4. Habitat Co., v. McClure, 703 N.E. 2d 578

I would also point out, K2, that everything the Legislature does is subject to Judicial approval.

Careful with your legal questions, K2. I may need to bill you.

 

[katherine2]

Should a small business owner who runs a two-man accounting firm in the basement of his house really be required to comply with the federal laws of employment? …the courts have repeatedly said no!

None of the cases you cite address employment law at all (I can;t find the CUB case). One has to do with sexual abuse of a minor. The other two involved state housing law (not federal employment) and even there in both cases the courts reconcile the Illinois Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act, leaving both laws in place but adjudicating between the law’s mandate against discrimination in housing to the mentally handicapped and another law giving landlords the right to remove a tenant who is a “direct threat to the health and safety” of the other tenents. Seems like a perfectly proper situation for the courts to rule on.

i stand by my statement.

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

None of the cases you cite address employment law at all (I can;t find the CUB case). One has to do with sexual abuse of a minor. The other two involved state housing law (not federal employment) and even there in both cases the courts reconcile the Illinois Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act, leaving both laws in place but adjudicating between the law’s mandate against discrimination in housing to the mentally handicapped and another law giving landlords the right to remove a tenant who is a “direct threat to the health and safety” of the other tenents. Seems like a perfectly proper situation for the courts to rule on.

i stand by my statement.

If the specific issue is employment law you want cases for, give me a few minutes. I chose housing discrimination only because the broader issue we are discussing is “civil rights.” But we can go to employment discrimination if you’d like. Also, I chose only state cases because the principal is the same. Federal law and state law are different entities, unless the state law is specifically preempted by the Federal.

Also, which statement are you standing behind…the fascist one in which you want to dictate what sort of qualifications an employer may or may not seek? Or the misinformed one in which you suggest that if a legislature enacts a law the court can rule on it?

Fiat
Fiat

 

[TarAshly]

Brad:

You don’t support homosexual marriage but you do support homosexual unions?

Does anyone here think it wrong to say a polite hello to anybody? Must not be any lunatic right wing fringers, whatever that means.

i could name a couple of em. but its friday and lent. so i’ll be nice

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

If the specific issue is employment law you want cases for, give me a few minutes.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. I believe the Civil Rights Act, signed by President Johnson, is wise and constitutional legislation. I do beleive the federal government can tell an employer that he cannot discriminate in the ways the Civil Rights Act prohibits. I applaud the Catholic Church for her support of the Civil Rights Act and her critical assistance in winning its enactment.

Is this a problem for you?

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. I believe the Civil Rights Act, signed by President Johnson, is wise and constitutional legislation. I do beleive the federal government can tell an employer that he cannot discriminate in the ways the Civil Rights Act prohibits. I applaud the Catholic Church for her support of the Civil Rights Act and her critical assistance in winning its enactment.

Is this a problem for you?

It’s a problem for me only insofar as you suggest the Civil Rights Act needs to be enlarged to encompass a persons sexual activity and that such protection needs to be mandated at the purely private industrial level. Your position is problematic for me on jurisprudential terms. Many people I know are content to enlarge the federal government in such ways that trample on certain privacy issues. Of course, we both realize that protecting the rights of one group oftentimes means destroying the rights of another. The difficulty I find with your position, if I am reading it correctly, is that you are content with imposing protections AGAINST one group while denying that such imposition does not limit the freedom of another group to decide what it wishes. When I hear people suggesting that the federal government should dictate who I should hire or how my office is designed, well then what freedom is the Bill of Rights going to give me?
Fiat*

 

[katherine2]

When I hear people suggesting that the federal government should dictate who I should hire or how my office is designed, well then what freedom is the Bill of Rights going to give me?

Fiat

So I am still unclear. in your judgement, does the Civil Rights Act violate that Bill of Rights Freedom to hire who a boss is pleased to hire? Does the Civil Rights Act advance the rights of racial minorities while trampling the legitimate rights of bosses?

 

[fix]

Fiat:

I, if I am reading it correctly, is that you are content with imposing protections AGAINST one group while denying that such imposition does not limit the freedom of another group to decide what it wishes. Fiat

I find this intriguing. Is part of the problem what courts, or legislators, have deemed a protected class?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I find this intriguing. Is part of the problem what courts, or legislators, have deemed a protected class?

There may be some confusion here. On the Civil Rights Act, it was passed by Congress and has been upheld by the Courts.

 

[Lisa_N]

bapcathluth:

I completely agree with Katherine here. I don’t know why you would say she is ignorant of the constitution since what she is stating is normal practice right now.

Take for instance the company that has been in the news lately that has said it will fire anybody who is a smoker. They aren’t just going to fire people who smoke on the job, but people who smoke at home. There is a big brouhaha and this case is going to court. If it were so cut and dried, as you state, we wouldn’t have heard about this case at all.

I think you will have to refer to state law in such cases. Most states as I understand can fire anyone they want even if the reason seems nonsensical. As to the smoking ban, even if the person is smoking on their spare time, it is not their ‘spare’ health. It will still affect them and with the huge increases in health insurance premiums by demanding a non smoking workforce an employer can offer health insurance that might be out of range if he had a group of smokers or people who engage in other unhealthy habits. I don’t see smoking as a moralistic issue so much as a health issue. I can tell you when I go to my gym and see some of the employees smoking, I am not only disgusted with them, but disgusted that a company that claims to promote health does not demand that its workforce avoid unhealthy habits.

I work in a doctor’s office and one of our doctors was very much against hiring grossly obese people because he said if we act as if obesity isn’t a health issue, we are doing our patients no service.

Anyway this is a 'fur piece from the thread but I think ya’ll who are not employers need to consider that sometimes these restrictions are not simple moralistic head thumping but have a reasonable basis

Lisa N

 

[fix]

katherine2:

There may be some confusion here. On the Civil Rights Act, it was passed by Congress and has been upheld by the Courts.

Yes, I know. I am wondering if any court cases have decided that certain groups, not originally intended, are now to be included.

If not the civil rights act, how about the ADA, or similar laws?

 

[TarAshly]

Lisa N:

I think you will have to refer to state law in such cases. Most states as I understand can fire anyone they want even if the reason seems nonsensical. As to the smoking ban, even if the person is smoking on their spare time, it is not their ‘spare’ health. It will still affect them and with the huge increases in health insurance premiums by demanding a non smoking workforce an employer can offer health insurance that might be out of range if he had a group of smokers or people who engage in other unhealthy habits. I don’t see smoking as a moralistic issue so much as a health issue. I can tell you when I go to my gym and see some of the employees smoking, I am not only disgusted with them, but disgusted that a company that claims to promote health does not demand that its workforce avoid unhealthy habits.

I work in a doctor’s office and one of our doctors was very much against hiring grossly obese people because he said if we act as if obesity isn’t a health issue, we are doing our patients no service.

Anyway this is a 'fur piece from the thread but I think ya’ll who are not employers need to consider that sometimes these restrictions are not simple moralistic head thumping but have a reasonable basis

Lisa N

GIVE ME A BREAK!!