Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 04:40 PM
According to the ACLU, being offended == being injured.
Really? Got examples?
Have never heard anything much bad about the ACLU, would be interested in an opposing view.
Off the cuff I don't and it will take me a while to look them up. However, to be perfectly honest, this is not something particularly disputed in the US.
It depends whose side you look at it from.
Liberal:
ACLU helps the little guy out & protects rights
Conservative:
ACLU uses small people to go after big companies to (win money &) enforce what they (the ACLU) believes in...sorta like some sort of dictatorship?
The ACLU is good in idea, bad in practice. It ends up hurting other people will trying to help some, well enough should be left alone.
Here's an example of why the ACLU is a joke:
The ACLU won millions for a girl's family from my high school because the girl was a quadriplegic and wasn't allowed on the school cheerleading squad, even though it is spelled out in the charter that cheerleaders are absolutely required to be physically able to perform the twirls, etc, whatever the hell they do.
One of their filthy lawyers showed up in a stretch limo to one of our football games and caused a big stink. Some of you may actually remember this incident if you watch 20/20, was all over that for about a week.
That does sound bad. It sounds like they do good things as well, though, and it's certainly important that someone keep an eye on civil liberties.
While their intentions, on the surface anyway, may be pure; their practices are not. They also basically will NOT talk to you if you have differing viewpoints. (Reference Protest Warrior Video "Liberty Rising")
Quote from: Arta[vL] on February 22, 2006, 08:48 AM
That does sound bad. It sounds like they do good things as well, though, and it's certainly important that someone keep an eye on civil liberties.
I don't think they keep an eye so much on civil liberties as the civil liberties of minority groups.
Another recent example: the ACLU petitioned the court to have crosses removed from memorials in a federal grave site simply because it was a federal grave site. The crosses were put there by the American Legion, *not* the federal government.
Isn't this ludicrous? Regardless of your feelings on religion, there has to be some measure of permitted display in public places.
Do they not also sue private companies on behalf of citizens whom were fired because they didn't agree politically or whatnot?
I'm thinkin about someone not being hired/being fired because they were gay & that company didn't like how that affected how some consumers viewed them.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 04:44 PM
Do they not also sue private companies on behalf of citizens whom were fired because they didn't agree politically or whatnot?
I'm thinkin about someone not being hired/being fired because they were gay & that company didn't like how that affected how some consumers viewed them.
Well yeah, I mean that's illegal. I work for mediation agencies that try to resolve this. Usually it's the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that files these kinds of lawsuits; the ACLU would only be involved in extreme or high-profile cases.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 06:02 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 04:44 PM
Do they not also sue private companies on behalf of citizens whom were fired because they didn't agree politically or whatnot?
I'm thinkin about someone not being hired/being fired because they were gay & that company didn't like how that affected how some consumers viewed them.
Well yeah, I mean that's illegal. I work for mediation agencies that try to resolve this. Usually it's the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that files these kinds of lawsuits; the ACLU would only be involved in extreme or high-profile cases.
Does Equal Oppurtunity apply to all companies in all cases?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 06:55 PM
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 06:02 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 04:44 PM
Do they not also sue private companies on behalf of citizens whom were fired because they didn't agree politically or whatnot?
I'm thinkin about someone not being hired/being fired because they were gay & that company didn't like how that affected how some consumers viewed them.
Well yeah, I mean that's illegal. I work for mediation agencies that try to resolve this. Usually it's the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that files these kinds of lawsuits; the ACLU would only be involved in extreme or high-profile cases.
Does Equal Oppurtunity apply to all companies in all cases?
In all cases? Only, I believe, if an unreasonable distinction is being drawn between the applicant and other applicants. If I'm not hired for a position as a moving guy because I have no arms, well, that's understandable. AFAIK it applies to all businesses.
Why, did you disagree with equal opportunity laws applying to the example that you gave?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 06:55 PM
Does Equal Oppurtunity apply to all companies in all cases?
To the best of my knowledge, it applies to:
-- Publicly-traded corporations
-- Non-profit organizations
-- Government agencies
-- Agencies acting under the auspices of a government or non-profit grant.
A guy who owns his business can require that his employees be Christian, for instance. They can sue if he fires them (for wrongful termination), but it's doubtful that they'd win, because it's a private business. Things begin to get muddy, though, as soon as you bring in investors. And that's what the law is designed to do: protect investors from the liability of these kinds of things, as well as the would-be victims.
Is Hooters a publically traded company?
I've not once in my life seen a male waiter there. Is that a type of discrimination?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
Is Hooters a publically traded company?
I've not once in my life seen a male waiter there. Is that a type of discrimination?
Yes, they're traded under the stock symbol HOOT
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
Is Hooters a publically traded company?
I've not once in my life seen a male waiter there. Is that a type of discrimination?
It could simply say that no waiters have ever tried to work there. Hooters has a stigma.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:34 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
Is Hooters a publically traded company?
I've not once in my life seen a male waiter there. Is that a type of discrimination?
It could simply say that no waiters have ever tried to work there. Hooters has a stigma.
hmm, good point.
I'll see about applying tomorrow, what should I put under "Measurements"? (I know they ask, I had a friend that picked up an application)
9"x6".
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:43 PM
9"x6".
Bust, waist, or ... I think there is a 3rd, maybe not though.
EDIT:QuoteThere is no set requirement in order to be a nearly World Famous Hooters Girl!
HAHAHA! No set requirements, I'm gonna apply to be a Hooters Girl!!! WHOO!
QuoteHooters Girl (females only need apply for position of Hooters Girl),
But that little bit sort of sounds like a requirement
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:45 PM
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:43 PM
9"x6".
Bust, waist, or ... I think there is a 3rd, maybe not though.
Don't you have a dick, numbnuts? Length x girth. I assume you're a guy. Those would be the relevant measurements.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 08:09 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:45 PM
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:43 PM
9"x6".
Bust, waist, or ... I think there is a 3rd, maybe not though.
Don't you have a dick, numbnuts? Length x girth. I assume you're a guy. Those would be the relevant measurements.
I know, but their form specifically asks for "feminine" measurements.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
Is Hooters a publically traded company?
I've not once in my life seen a male waiter there. Is that a type of discrimination?
No. Some guy tried to work there and sued (well the EEOC sued) Hooters. They argued that a male waiter wouldn't fit with the image their customers are looking for or something like that.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=101
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on February 23, 2006, 04:59 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
Is Hooters a publically traded company?
I've not once in my life seen a male waiter there. Is that a type of discrimination?
No. Some guy tried to work there and sued (well the EEOC sued) Hooters. They argued that a male waiter wouldn't fit with the image their customers are looking for or something like that.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=101
hum, I thought so.
I believe it is totally ok for someone to be fired because they're pregnant, or smoke, or gay then. It isn't terrible nice, but its that company's choice to put out whatever view they want.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 23, 2006, 09:09 AM
hum, I thought so.
I believe it is totally ok for someone to be fired because they're pregnant
No, FMLA protects pregnant and recent parents up to 4 weeks following delivery...
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 23, 2006, 09:09 AM
, or smoke,
Possibly, but I can't imagine why companies even offer smoke breaks if this is the case.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 23, 2006, 09:09 AM
or gay then.
That would never fly in today's society.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 23, 2006, 09:09 AM
It isn't terrible nice, but its that company's choice to put out whatever view they want.
Companies that are publically traded need to be particularly careful. Obviously Hooters isn't simply selling burgers and beer.
There should be one full standard for everyone.
Why is it that only females can work as waitresses there but I couldn't run a large business & only hire homosexual secretaries?
Discrimination:The only thing I see the constitutional amendments about discrimination has to do with voting.
I also read that discrimination laws are just laws, not constitutional amendments.
Wonder how you could get around a discrimination law by saying they are unconstitutional. "Right to happiness" maybe? You may not be happy with gay people working in your company so you fire them. Although, then that leaves ALOT of stuff open for unhappiness lawsuits.
Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws (http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/employment_employer/nolo/ency/A12C8632-3538-4497-AFB1D219C6FC732C.html)
QuoteTitle VII prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). It also prohibits employers from retaliating against an applicant or employee who asserts his or her rights under the law. For example, an employer cannot fire someone for complaining about race discrimination. To learn more about retaliation, seeAvoiding Retaliation Complaints by Employees.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 23, 2006, 04:43 PM
There should be one full standard for everyone.
Why is it that only females can work as waitresses there but I couldn't run a large business & only hire homosexual secretaries?
Discrimination:
The only thing I see the constitutional amendments about discrimination has to do with voting.
I also read that discrimination laws are just laws, not constitutional amendments.
Wonder how you could get around a discrimination law by saying they are unconstitutional. "Right to happiness" maybe? You may not be happy with gay people working in your company so you fire them. Although, then that leaves ALOT of stuff open for unhappiness lawsuits.
There is no constitutional provision guaranteeing happiness. The closest you get is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, and which only demans the right to
pursue happiness. There is no constitutional provision regarding discrimination as you said; however, civil rights supreme court cases have been made that people are people, and the constitution is blind to their race/ethnicity/sexuality/gender/pregnancy. Note that this doesn't always apply to marriage, because marriage is defined by law as between a man and woman.
And you can run a business and only hire homosexual secretaries. You couldn't do so in a publically-traded corporation, unless your corporation's product was outsourced homosexual secretaries (e.g., you were a temp agency that provided homosexual secretaries as a product), or it was another otherwise-necessary component of your business.
You also couldn't force your homosexual secretaries to do each other.
So the Hooters girls are apart of their product?
How degrading.