At the request of his wife, an Iowa dentist fired a female assistant because she was "irresistible and a threat to his marriage." She sued, claiming discrimination. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the dentist. Good call?
What did her class/status/race have to do with it? And what if Knight were gay and Nelson a man? He's discriminatory because he's heterosexual? Its not discrimination, its nature.
And all of his employees are women, including Nelson's replacement.
palin - exactly what I've been thinking!
Is he going to start turning business away if the women are too hot?
He fired her for being a pretty woman? That's discrimination beyond belief. I can't believe people on here are ok with this.
This is EXACTLY the same train of thought. The same train of thought that gave us this year's greats like "Trayvon Martin shouldn't have looked so menacing in his hoodie"
It's good to know your weakness. Good man.
it's everybody else's fault...just not his. the guy whose being forced to cheat on his wife.
Go away, and take your empty accusations with you.
So you say those things are more important than choosing what's best for his family? You are a despicable, lowlife, family destroying monster. You are below Insurance Adjusters. You leave this man, his family, and his privately owned business alone.
did you see her picture? and this guy can't control himself? she's sooo beguiling that she's responsible for him wanting to cheat on his wife? this is utterly laughable! is this like the woman's fault for getting raped because she wore a pretty dress?
Hey, RJ. I've been dealing with some health problems so I haven't been able to commit much time to debates. I don't want to have to back out of debates because of time constraints so I have barely been commenting at all. I still answer questions and sometimes read comments.
He isn't responsible enough to operate a business. If he doesn't want to operate by federal civil rights standards, then so be it.
3: geez... Maybe bc this woman was discriminated based on her biological make up, genetics. Kinda like someone's race... C'mon now. And for someone to say an employer has MORE OF A RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE Is soo dated. Ur head must be spinning fast being empty and all.
Maybe he should've closed his business down. Never know when a good-looking client is going to come in.
RJ1969, that attitude is exactly why divorce rates are so high
if this is what's necessary to save his marriage then his marriage isn't worth a damn.
in "that" state...the one you're in?
how is that ironic?
If this saves his marriage, then it'd the right thing to do. I'm sure it was a tough choice to make, but when he chose between his business practice vs his family, he picked family. The naysayers are always just looking for someone to sue.
Doesn't work that way. There are rules ALL people who want to do business in our country have to follow.
Also, are you a pro-segregationist?
That's so ironic because the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state
Ray: she should be awarded, i dunno maybe JUSTICE and a country that protected her rights! Lets start there.
no, "whatever reason" is not acceptable.
What if an employee left a job because he didn't like his boss because his boss was *insert demographic group here*
Lets not be hypocrites. Employees AND employers need to have the freedom to separate for whatever reason, even if the reason is something that offends you
comment of the month award winner!
We have an incident that would not have occurred had the person's class/status/gender/race been different. That's pretty open and shut
An emotional reaction based solely on her gender. We can say, without a doubt, that the employee in question been a MAN, this wouldn't have happened. That's textbook discrimination
@annie- yep, that's possible. It doesn't make sense. But it's a separate issue. Employers and employees need to have the freedom to separate
Ooooh, goody! A time-travel map!
Look, it's still 1912 in the freak states. Please DO try and turn the century in our lifetimes.
That's what this case is all about. The judge affirmed that the dismissal was based on emotion and not gender as Nelson alleged, and therefore legal under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
really? well when the "private" sector starts building freeways to being them their business then the gov can step away. until then, all of these "private" businesses that rely on our society to thrive need a little reality check.
The women has rights, unlike cake.
It's a textbook case of gender discrimination and the fact that the all-male Supreme Court justices of the state of Iowa couldn't see that is sickening but not surprising. You don't get to fire women because they're a "threat to your marriage".
loadmaster, I don't have the right to terminate your employment based on blatant discrimination.
instead of being "attractive", what if it is because she's black? still ok? how about gets in an accident? still ok?
Fucking ridiculous and sickening. It's not an employee's fault you have no self control. How 'bout that good old fashioned personal responsibility a certain political party loves to cite?
Hopefully she appeals this to the Supreme Court of the United States. This isn't right
I am shocked by the results of this poll. Is the guy an ass, yes! Should people support his business no!
Should the government medal in the hiring and firing of private business NO!
Government in the private sector does not work!
SOH conveniently disregarded the fact that the woman was suing on the basis of gender discrimination.
I can't fire you because you're a republican/democrat/communist and your party affiliation causes me an annoyance or makes me uncomfortable... I don't see why so many people can't see that
You can't fire someone because their color is threat to your racial integrity. You can't fire someone because their private lifestyle is perceived by you to be a negative influence on your children. You can't fire someone because their gender affects your marriage... That violates the law
I am not saying it is right but you can fire someone for any reason you want.
I think the guy is jerk, but I believe the court rules correctly.
It is not the governments place to dictate to business owners on who to hire and fire. Even if the reason is just ridiculous.
If RJ ever owns a business I'm working for them, since they don't have a right to terminate my employment.
It was based on the perception as a threat to the marriage. Any married couple can perceive any other person to be a threat. If none of the extra communication had happened and the husband only fired the girl because the wife was upset, then I would agree. But alas...
I agree with the comment that I hope he ends up going out of business over this.
Yes, but there are certain circumstances in which you cannot.
no it's not.
Although, in the end, I think my attempt doesn't hurt or affect them the same as sexism, racism, homophobia or other prejudices against historically persecuted groups does. Somehow, saying, "man, you have it so good" just doesn't have the same sting. I tried though. But you get the point
Unless we can conclusively prove that he fired her for her looks, or just because she was female and NOT because he and his wife felt she was too much of a threat to their marriage, he was LEGALLY in the right.
... so long as those rules don't break the law. As far as I can see, he made a tough decision and went about it the wrong way but broke no laws.