Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 24th, 2012 12:00am

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?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 2:46 pm

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.

Reply
EarlyBird Portland
12/24/12 2:46 pm

palin - exactly what I've been thinking!

Is he going to start turning business away if the women are too hot?

Reply
smtimberman
12/24/12 2:46 pm

He fired her for being a pretty woman? That's discrimination beyond belief. I can't believe people on here are ok with this.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:44 pm

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"

Reply
ovcourse Commiefornia FJB
12/24/12 2:44 pm

It's good to know your weakness. Good man.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:43 pm

no thanks.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:43 pm

wow.

it's everybody else's fault...just not his. the guy whose being forced to cheat on his wife.

Reply
lightsabr2 The Big Sky
12/24/12 2:42 pm

Go away, and take your empty accusations with you.

Reply
lightsabr2 The Big Sky
12/24/12 2:41 pm

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.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:37 pm

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?

Reply
austrian Valid Location, Virginia
12/24/12 2:35 pm

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.

palindrome California
12/24/12 2:34 pm

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.

Reply
soulfighter
12/24/12 2:34 pm

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.

palindrome California
12/24/12 2:33 pm

Maybe he should've closed his business down. Never know when a good-looking client is going to come in.

Reply
lanceparke
12/24/12 2:33 pm

RJ1969, that attitude is exactly why divorce rates are so high

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:31 pm

if this is what's necessary to save his marriage then his marriage isn't worth a damn.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:30 pm

in "that" state...the one you're in?

how is that ironic?

Reply
lightsabr2 The Big Sky
12/24/12 2:30 pm

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.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:29 pm

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?

Reply
Gunfighter
12/24/12 2:29 pm

That's so ironic because the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state

Reply
soulfighter
12/24/12 2:29 pm

Ray: she should be awarded, i dunno maybe JUSTICE and a country that protected her rights! Lets start there.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:28 pm

no, "whatever reason" is not acceptable.

Reply
truth1 Florida
12/24/12 2:27 pm

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

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:26 pm

comment of the month award winner!

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:26 pm

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

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:24 pm

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

Reply
truth1 Florida
12/24/12 2:23 pm

@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

suppressedID suck it Kyle
12/24/12 2:22 pm

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.

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 2:21 pm

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.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:20 pm

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.

Reply
GoldenRay On SSBB
12/24/12 2:20 pm

The women has rights, unlike cake.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:19 pm

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".

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:18 pm

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?

Reply
fourwinds box of rain
12/24/12 2:16 pm

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?

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:16 pm

Hopefully she appeals this to the Supreme Court of the United States. This isn't right

Reply
davidwhite1 Building it Bigger
12/24/12 2:15 pm

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!

Reply
EvilGenius Florida
12/24/12 2:15 pm

SOH conveniently disregarded the fact that the woman was suing on the basis of gender discrimination.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:15 pm

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

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:13 pm

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

Reply
davidwhite1 Building it Bigger
12/24/12 2:12 pm

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.

Reply
Loadmaster Sacto
12/24/12 2:11 pm

If RJ ever owns a business I'm working for them, since they don't have a right to terminate my employment.

Reply
Loadmaster Sacto
12/24/12 2:10 pm

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...

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:09 pm

I agree with the comment that I hope he ends up going out of business over this.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:09 pm

Yes, but there are certain circumstances in which you cannot.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:08 pm

we'll see.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 2:07 pm

no it's not.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 2:07 pm

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

Reply
Loadmaster Sacto
12/24/12 2:06 pm

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.

Reply
Loadmaster Sacto
12/24/12 2:04 pm

... 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.

Reply