Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • THE_WIZARD_
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Wiz, tell your wife to quit screwing around on TikTok. Table 9 needs refills

    bastage

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
    He was a great tight end. So clutch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Wiz, tell your wife to quit screwing around on TikTok. Table 9 needs refills

    Leave a comment:


  • THE_WIZARD_
    replied
    STFU

    Leave a comment:


  • AlabamAlum
    replied
    He was a great tight end. So clutch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    Anthony Gonzalez is quitting...won't run for reelection.

    https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/...-election.html

    Leave a comment:


  • iam416
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    What Jeff said but I don't see a constitutional issue if your employer fires you for getting an abortion. It's possibly a violation of federal law. You "maybe" have a case that since only women can be fired for having abortions, you were discriminated against because you were a woman, but that's not as clear cut a violation of the law as firing someone for getting pregnant. You have a constitutional right to free speech too but if your boss tells you to stop wearing your MAGA hat at work and you refuse, it's not a violation of your constitutional rights when he fires you. Unlike race, sex, and religion, politics aren't a protected class of citizens.

    The grayest area is whether the federal govt can mandate vaccines. It's pretty clear cut that local and state governments CAN, as Jeff said, since 1905. The public welfare takes precedence over your personal indifference to spreading disease.
    Just to correct one point — “only women can be fired for abortions” is 100% false and grotesquely transphobic. Please commence a struggle session to address your failings.

    Leave a comment:


  • THE_WIZARD_
    replied
    STFU

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    The guy Trump just endorsed for Michigan AG is every bit the grifter and liar that Sydney Powell and Lin Wood are, just much less well known. He was one of the first, if not the first, to come up with the claims about Dominion voting machines. He is also reportedly under investigation.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-or...nand-his-money

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Strangelove
    replied
    What Jeff said but I don't see a constitutional issue if your employer fires you for getting an abortion. It's possibly a violation of federal law. You "maybe" have a case that since only women can be fired for having abortions, you were discriminated against because you were a woman, but that's not as clear cut a violation of the law as firing someone for getting pregnant. You have a constitutional right to free speech too but if your boss tells you to stop wearing your MAGA hat at work and you refuse, it's not a violation of your constitutional rights when he fires you. Unlike race, sex, and religion, politics aren't a protected class of citizens.

    The grayest area is whether the federal govt can mandate vaccines. It's pretty clear cut that local and state governments CAN, as Jeff said, since 1905. The public welfare takes precedence over your personal indifference to spreading disease.

    Leave a comment:


  • THE_WIZARD_
    replied
    Listen here Benedict Liney...do as you are told...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Buchanan
    replied
    She gets the abortion anyway, and is fired.

    So, the employer usurped authority over her body. Isn't that unconstitutional?
    There might be a constitutional issue here but the EEOC rules have to be worked out first. She's not covered under the portion of those laws that prevents termination if pregnant - she got an abortion. Not pregnant anymore. If this is an "at-will state" and all states (some exemption apply) have state laws that legally define them as such, the employer that fired her doesn't need to bring any of this up and shouldn't.

    And why doesn't it apply in the matter of anyone that chooses to remain unvaccinated? The government is usurping authority over one's body, with the vaccine mandates.
    This probably gets a little more complicated. Challenges to vaccine mandates have been dismissed by the Supremes since 1905 so, there is that hurdle to climb if a group or individual wants to file. The tougher hill to climb is the EEOC. Under labor laws, employers have the right to set their terms and conditions of employment — if a worker doesn't comply, a company can give them the ax. This also applies for COVID-19 vaccinations, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    There's some complexity in this that I'm not qualified to go into but basically this argument doesn't fly, JMO but what do I know.

    Leave a comment:


  • lineygoblue
    replied
    A local TV weatherman in Marquette has been fired, because he refused to get vaccinated.

    So that makes me wonder.

    Lets suppose this is a female weatherperson, who is pregnant. She decides to get an abortion because the baby is inconvenient. Her employer tells her if she gets the abortion, she's fired.

    She gets the abortion anyway, and is fired.

    So, the employer usurped authority over her body. Isn't that unconstitutional?

    And why doesn't it apply in the matter of anyone that chooses to remain unvaccinated? The government is usurping authority over one's body, with the vaccine mandates.

    The difference is?

    (I am expecting lots of harumphing here ... )

    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ne/8369189002/

    Leave a comment:


  • iam416
    replied
    I see that The Media is indirectly admitting, yet again, that Governor DeSantis was correct: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...ibody-therapy/

    This time it has to do with his promotion of Regeneron, for which he was castigated mere months ago. Now supply is limited and the Chairman himself is trying to ensure that the US has adequate stocks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kapture1
    replied
    O6WIyDSg.jpg

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X