GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-28-2013, 15:17   #101
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,255


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPicaro View Post
Well I don't think that it is discrimination. I would argue it is looking out for the bottom line. You keep calling it discrimination. First we need to change what you are calling it to protecting the bottom line.

So how do we change it? Maybe Rand Paul will help? Perhaps we can get some of the Tea Party freshman to introduce bills that get rid of the Socialist ADA?
You are refusing service or employment to a particular group based on a certain criteria. That's discrimination by definition and it is the very mechanism you propose that businesses use to "look out for the bottom line".

Advocating that common usage of the English language be altered in order to make an argument more palateable is not a trait normally associated with an honest and forthright argument.
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 15:22   #102
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
You are refusing service or employment to a particular group based on a certain criteria. That's discrimination by definition and it is the very mechanism you propose that businesses use to "look out for the bottom line".
Discrimination by definition, but not by law. It's discrimination not to hire someone because they can't use Microsoft Excel. It's discrimination not to hire someone because they can't life a 40lb box. It's discrimination not to hire someone because they're just not that smart.

If you have the type of job that didn't require any discrimination during the hiring process, you're most likely earning minimum wage.
N4LP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 15:24   #103
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
You are refusing service or employment to a particular group based on a certain criteria. That's discrimination by definition and it is the very mechanism you propose that businesses use to "look out for the bottom line".

Advocating that common usage of the English language be altered in order to make an argument more palateable is not a trait normally associated with an honest and forthright argument.
Is Obesity a protected class? I don't believe it is. Are diabetics a protected class?
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 15:30   #104
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,255


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPicaro View Post
Is Obesity a protected class? I don't believe it is. Are diabetics a protected class?
How is that relevant to the fact that it is still discrimination?

There was once a time when blacks weren't a "protected class" either. Does that mean that refusing to serve them in restaurants WASN'T discrimination???

Look, I can see why you may not like the term, but it is what it is and altering the English language to suit your argument doesn't change that.
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 15:37   #105
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,255


Quote:
Originally Posted by N4LP View Post
Discrimination by definition, but not by law. It's discrimination not to hire someone because they can't use Microsoft Excel. It's discrimination not to hire someone because they can't life a 40lb box. It's discrimination not to hire someone because they're just not that smart.

If you have the type of job that didn't require any discrimination during the hiring process, you're most likely earning minimum wage.
No argument there, which is why I'm surprised at ChiTownPicaro getting all bent out of shape about me using the term.
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 15:48   #106
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
How is that relevant to the fact that it is still discrimination?

There was once a time when blacks weren't a "protected class" either. Does that mean that refusing to serve them in restaurants WASN'T discrimination???

Look, I can see why you may not like the term, but it is what it is and altering the English language to suit your argument doesn't change that.
It matters because discrimination is not illegal unless it's against a protected class. As en employer you have to discriminate when hiring, or you're not going to make any money.

If you're hiring a programmer, you're going to discriminate against those who can't program. Is that fair? Of course it is. How about if you can program, but the other guy I'm interviewing is better at it simply because has more natural ability? Can I discriminate against you, the less able programmer? Of course I can. It would be stupid to pretend that discrimination is wrong no matter what.

Ever see a 300lb server at Hooters? Are they breaking the law?
N4LP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:04   #107
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
ChiTownPicaro is clearly a Lib troll who has infiltrated GT and who supports Obama. Don't be a sucker & take the bait.

He's trolling here as in all of his threads and I'd bet he doesn't even own a gun. Avoid him.
The OP has a clear history of being an Obommunist troll.

Obommunists are actively seeking ways to increase the number of Americans on federal disability. Morbid obesity is just one of many nebulous criteria now used to substantially increase the number of people on disability, thus making them more likely to vote Democrat in order to preserve their monthly "benefits" a.k.a. Obamastash.

Here-- http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175502...-full-time-job -- is a recent NPR story that was aired to let their listeners know that paid consultants are actively seeking participants who can move up from the welfare plantation to the disability Manor House.

Getting suckers to support moving people off of gainful employment by exploiting said suckers' dislike for "fatties", or "smokers" is the OP's one and only goal. Best not to fall for it.
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana

Last edited by Fred Hansen; 03-28-2013 at 16:06..
Fred Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:06   #108
badge315
Senior Member
 
badge315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middleburg, FL
Posts: 3,700
Applying the OP's logic, it would be foolish to hire blacks, since they are much more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system and thus increase absenteeism. Same goes for women; they might get pregnant and be out of work. How about Jews and Muslims, with all their non-"standard" holidays?

Paying somebody to perform a task does not confer upon an employer the power to regulate every aspect of their employees' lives.
__________________
"I am the sum of all evil...yet many still seek me out; a green jewel they must possess. But see how I destroy their lives."

- The Loc-Nar

Last edited by badge315; 03-28-2013 at 16:06..
badge315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:06   #109
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
No argument there, which is why I'm surprised at ChiTownPicaro getting all bent out of shape about me using the term.
I think this thread is a troll, but it's a good troll. It's interesting to see people on Glock Talk get offended when you suggest employers should have the freedom not to hire someone because of a certain trait they possess. Perhaps it makes a few people realize that maybe the government should have a role in protecting certain classes of people against discrimination. It's funny how peoples opinion about an issue can change when they're directly affected by it.
N4LP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:24   #110
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
When your personal life starts to affect the companies bottom line, I'd say they have a understandable reason to make regulations.
Really? So say I'm healthy as a horse..and one day I come down with prostate cancer. Doc says I have a 50-50 chance.

Next day I go to work and they give me my notice because I'm now unhealthy!

Or a woman gets pregnant. And that's going to result in more medical costs and time lost. Fired.


Or a wounded vet applies to a job. And you get to say...sorry you lost your arm but you obviously will cost us a buttload for your health care and you probably have PTSD...so no job offer for you.
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:37   #111
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Really? So say I'm healthy as a horse..and one day I come down with prostate cancer. Doc says I have a 50-50 chance.

Next day I go to work and they give me my notice because I'm now unhealthy!

Or a woman gets pregnant. And that's going to result in more medical costs and time lost. Fired.

Or a wounded vet applies to a job. And you get to say...sorry you lost your arm but you obviously will cost us a buttload for your health care and you probably have PTSD...so no job offer for you.
I believe all of your examples are protected classes.
N4LP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:41   #112
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by N4LP View Post
I believe all of your examples are protected classes.

Put "and fat or out of shape" in front of all three and now you have a way to fire "unhealthy" people.
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 16:59   #113
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
You are refusing service or employment to a particular group based on a certain criteria. That's discrimination by definition and it is the very mechanism you propose that businesses use to "look out for the bottom line".
...

Good grief, this term "discrimination" is so grossly misused it's ridiculous.

Discrimination as defined according to the Equal Opportunity Act is illegal.
That is described and summarized HERE:
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/upload...int_poster.pdf

This body of law does NOT make "discrimination" on any other basis unlawful.
It's a very specific set of criteria defining "discrimination" for the purposes of determining what is and is not legal for hiring practices in the U.S.

The word "discrimination" is NOT a general-purpose catch-all that means "if you're an employer you must include EVERYONE".

.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY

Last edited by Atlas; 03-28-2013 at 17:01..
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 17:02   #114
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Really? So say I'm healthy as a horse..and one day I come down with prostate cancer. Doc says I have a 50-50 chance.

Next day I go to work and they give me my notice because I'm now unhealthy!

Or a woman gets pregnant. And that's going to result in more medical costs and time lost. Fired.


Or a wounded vet applies to a job. And you get to say...sorry you lost your arm but you obviously will cost us a buttload for your health care and you probably have PTSD...so no job offer for you.
All of that should be perfectly legal.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 17:50   #115
N4LP
Senior Member
 
N4LP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Put "and fat or out of shape" in front of all three and now you have a way to fire "unhealthy" people.
Yes, you can break the law if you choose, and aren't worried about the consequences if you get caught.
N4LP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:07   #116
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
All of that should be perfectly legal.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Oh... I agree completely. But the Federal government has already interjected itself into the employer/employee relationship to such as degree and has so badly distorted the ability of people to make decisions in their own best interest that its a lost deal anyhow.
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:12   #117
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,255


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
Good grief, this term "discrimination" is so grossly misused it's ridiculous.

Discrimination as defined according to the Equal Opportunity Act is illegal.
That is described and summarized HERE:
http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/upload...int_poster.pdf
And Webster's defines Discrimination as "The act of discriminating."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...discrimination

My use of the term is perfectly legitimate.
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:16   #118
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmo1066 View Post
And Webster's defines Discrimination as "The act of discriminating."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...discrimination

My use of the term is perfectly legitimate.
Your use of the term was meaningless.

You strongly implied that "discrimination" in that context is something for which an employer could be held legally accountable.

And yes I quoted your post but I was not pointing the finger strictly at you in that regard.... many, many people have that same misconception and use "discrimination" as a misnomer in that fashion.


It just becomes ludicrous...
"No! You can't discriminate against a specific group of people!! It's not allowed!"



.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY

Last edited by Atlas; 03-28-2013 at 18:20..
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:24   #119
tsmo1066
Happy Smiley
 
tsmo1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,255


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
Your use of the term was meaningless.

You strongly implied that "discrimination" in that context is something for which an employer could be held legally accountable.

And yes I quoted your post but I was not pointing the finger strictly at you in that regard.... many, many people have that same misconception and use "discrimination" as a misnomer in that fashion.
It just becomes ludicrous.

.
I made no such implication. What I did was point out the absurdity of the situation under which it is OK to discriminate against someone for being a fattie, but illegal (thanks to the American's with Disabilities Act) to dicriminate against someone who is a MEGA fattie to the point that they are confined to a wheelchair.

Let yourself go a little and discrimination is OK. Let yourself go A LOT and suddenly you are protected.

Now that I think of it, there was an old episode of "The Simpsons" that dealt with this very issue. Homer was warned by his boss that he needed to lose some weight or he would be fired, but then he found out that if he actually GAINED weight instead, to the point that he he weighed over 300 pounds, he would qualify for disability protections - so instead of dieting he went on an all-out eating binge and started wearing a mu-mu to work...
__________________
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by tsmo1066; 03-28-2013 at 18:32..
tsmo1066 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:25   #120
norton
Senior Member
 
norton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Land of Lincoln, the growing years
Posts: 6,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
Just to play devil's advocate:

If you work for a private company, do they not have a say in various aspects of their employees' lifestyle? For example, if you want to come to my house and I ask you to leave your gun at home, I would expect you to comply.

What about dopers? Something tells me that delivery companies probably don't want their employees chasing a rainbow-farting dragon down the middle of a crowded sidewalk in the company vehicle.

What about obese people? Insuring them costs the company and the rest of the employees more money. Barring the rare case of an actual medical reason, isn't it appropriate to have them shoulder some of the burden for their healthcare? Why should I have to pay more for my healthcare coverage when I hardly ever use it? The same applies to smokers.

My point is, nobody is dictating to any private company how they should manage their employees. If a business wants to promote wellness (and their bottom line), it is their choice on how they do it. And it is your choice to work there or work elsewhere.

Want to set your own rules, start your own business and manage your employees as you see fit.
If a company wanted to lower their insurance costs, I would suggest not hiring young people. they are more likely to produce dependents who are covered under the group plan and are constantly getting sick and needing medical services.
__________________
Tinker to Evers to Chance.
norton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:27   #121
Glock20 10mm
Use Linux!
 
Glock20 10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Land of Idiots and Libtards
Posts: 14,509
It's all irrelevant... when the bottom falls out weight loss will not be an option... but a way of life!
__________________
Using Microsoft is like playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol... the results are always messy
"The Constitution is my Law. The Declaration of Independence my bible. And Freedom my religion." - Me
Thick skin... a must in a free society.
Glock20 10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 18:32   #122
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm View Post
It's all irrelevant... when the bottom falls out weight loss will not be an option... but a way of life!
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 20:39   #123
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Oh... I agree completely. But the Federal government has already interjected itself into the employer/employee relationship to such as degree and has so badly distorted the ability of people to make decisions in their own best interest that its a lost deal anyhow.
Gotcha. That post seemed out of sorts for you but I wasn't tracking.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 21:03   #124
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by badge315 View Post
Applying the OP's logic, it would be foolish to hire blacks, since they are much more likely to be involved with the criminal justice system and thus increase absenteeism. Same goes for women; they might get pregnant and be out of work. How about Jews and Muslims, with all their non-"standard" holidays?

Paying somebody to perform a task does not confer upon an employer the power to regulate every aspect of their employees' lives.
Well with regards to those classes, those are protected groups. They are also groups which one does not choose to be a member of but is born into. It is not an ascribed status but a natural status. As far as religious holidays, if I ran a company, no holidays of any religious nature. I would also sue so that Christmas is taken off the Federal Holiday list as it is a religious holiday.

The employer would also do routine background checks which would turn up criminal histories. My logic suggests that they should fire those who are costing them money after they are hired.

Corporations are not trying to run everyones life, just trying to protect their bottom line. You can do what you want, but if it harms the company, then you should be able to be fired without any issues or problems.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 21:05   #125
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by N4LP View Post
I think this thread is a troll, but it's a good troll. It's interesting to see people on Glock Talk get offended when you suggest employers should have the freedom not to hire someone because of a certain trait they possess. Perhaps it makes a few people realize that maybe the government should have a role in protecting certain classes of people against discrimination. It's funny how peoples opinion about an issue can change when they're directly affected by it.
I am not a troll but a Freedom loving American. The hypocrisy here is astounding. Lots of socialist Obama lovers here.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 770
197 Members
573 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42