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?
Absolutely not. I was making the point that many countries use logic that discriminates. I was also making the point were so lucky to live in a country where most of us have evolved beyond that. Most of us except the nine male judges on this Starr's supreme court.
BUT, right-to-work laws do not supersede discrimination laws. That's why lawsuits like this happen all the time. So even if technically the employer has the right to terminate employment due to whatever reason, in practice that is not true.
another waste of money to make doctor visits go up
there's no federal law. but most companies employ the "right to work" clause. most hr departments contain a clause in the paperwork when you sign on that you or your employer can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason. check with your company I bet they have it
God supports slavery. It's in the bible.
So... we... should allow sexual discrimination because other countries do it? Not sure where you're going with that analysis...
Thankfully federal law says otherwise. This was filed only in state court. They should refile in federal court. They'd win.
Ok, apparently you couldn't find it in the constitution. Quote me a single *law* where it says that employers can fire anyone they want for any reason they want. Pretty sure you're just spouting opinion here and not actually backing yourself with facts or coherence.
How could anybody say being fired for your appearance is ok? We should all be evaluated on our work, not appearance. The fact a pastor was involved in the termination makes this even more unfair. I don't think god would support discrimination.
The court didn't address that sir. They addressed the aspect of whether a person has the right to fire someone based on the feelings of their spouse. They hardly touched that question at all. It was surprisingly glossed over
Employers have the power. That is why there are laws protecting employees. He can just hire another employee. There are more employees than jobs. Your comment needs some analysis.
I agree with that pragmatism - if you're up to the job and only then you should get it.
I know you're being ironic, but many countries in the world apply this logic daily,e.g. Women should cover themselves so men won't rape them.
Okie, I know SEVERAL women that can do that. That's not a special ability. Women come in all shapes and sizes and with all sorts of abilities.
Women can be just as strong as men, if not stronger.
If you open and operate a business, you are bound by the laws governing businesses (which, btw, you KNOWINGLY agree to)
If you choose to remain a private indiv., you are bound by the laws that govern private individuals.
by a different set of laws that come with the PRIVILEGE of being able to operate a business for personal profit.
Do you get that? You CHOOSE to operate a business and accept to be bound by a special set of laws for that privilege. If you CANNOT accept that, then DON'T open a business.
Its their property, their business, their money theyre making, they get to choose who works for them, to maximize profits. Its private business kid, not government jobs.
Let me explain to you what an employer is:
It is someone who has made a deal with the government to operate an establishment that works with the public. Someone who receives benefits both direct and indirect from the govt and the public. It is an establishment that is has agreed to and is bound
Obviously it's the woman's fault for being too attractive, not the man's for not being able to resist himself.
Let me explain to you the difference between an employee and an employer:
An employee is a private individual. He or she has the right to quit for whatever reason they want (oftentimes at some adverse cost). You can't force people to give up their personal attitudes.
I'm 6' 200 lbs. show me one if them that can carry me in a "fireman's carry," which is an over-the-shoulder carry. If they can do that then they should keep their job. If not, then affirmative action or political correctness has screwed the community.
Dude. Did you see your last post?
I wouldn't be talking about other people's logic right now.
Well first, you don't need a reason to quit. There is no law requiring one. Second, of course it's wrong, but it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience to an employer if someone quits, it can be devastating at times to be fired.
YOU'RE free to slap the hell out of your kid
But I'M not free to slap the hell out of your kid
Lets stop the hypocrisy guys
Where is your proof that women are incapable of being firefighters? As stated above, there are tons of women firefighters. Are you just trolling us, or do actually believe what you're saying?
The emotion vs. logic in this SOH is so out of balance it's insane
Poor English speakers: this is a communication thing, not a racial thing, so you *could* have a point. BUT, they could learn to communicate better, this woman couldn't learn to be unattractive to this guy. The guy is completely in the wrong here.
Employee leaves employer bc his boss is white and he doesn't like white ppl - OK
Employer leaves employee bc he doesn't like her looks - BIG DEAL!
Lets stop the hypocrisy
Women as firefighters: there are plenty who are stronger enough. It's wrong to assume otherwise just because they are women; they deserve the opportunity to prove themselves.
1) all discrimination is motivated by emotion and feelings.
2) this is entirely based on gender as it's sexual in nature.
There are thousands of female firefighters. Try telling them that they can't do their job.
But not for no reason. We have laws protecting workers as well.
Interesting, I don't recall which amendment to the constitution guaranteed the right of business-people to fire workers for whatever reason they wanted. Enlighten me, please.
@cheesechile: And you sound like an A-hole for directing insults at me personally over an opinion that was not directed at you personally. Nice conversation
I thought this was a joke. What ever happened to self control and discipline.
Another example: I think it should be ok for Hooters to hire only pretty chicks as waitresses. Also think that a strip club catering to men can so NO to male dancers. I think that "la leche league," a group that helps women learn to breast feed, is ok only hiring mothers that once breast fed.
The key is the reason for the discrimination. Women are physically incapable of being fire fighters. This is a pragmatic reason. As long as the reason has a basis in logic or pragmatism and not rooted in some hatred or prejudice then I think its OK.
I look at a person's capabilities-- not my prejudice towards their group. If you can get the job done, then do it. Doesn't matter what you are.
I think most forms of discrimination have some natural and authorized practice, even those we find abhorable in most situations. For instance, women shouldn't be fire fighters, the NAACP should be able to hire only blacks, the ACLU only democrats, the Baptists churches only baptists, etc.
Although it's stupid reason to fire someone. If you pay the bills it should be your call.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
My doc did the same thing, his wife is a jealous nutjob.
The employer has the right to fire whoever they want, whatever the reason. Its their business after all.
If youre going to fire someone, just say times are hard and you cant afford to pay the salary. Whatever your reasons are, just tell a little white lie, and they go away. Never reveal your personal reasons for firing someone. Bottom line though, an employer has the right to fire whatever the reason.
You sound a little doubtful, and yet pompous too. Deadly mixture.
Slick, I don't think I own someone's business! It's not fair that this woman loses her job, just cause a man can't control his manly desires!! That's just not right.
Hahaha. That's funny.
Won't be long. Only takes a younger woman, and one slight glance in the wrong direction.
Be it legal, or illegal, if she appeals and it gets higher in the courts I assume she will win. Its clearly wrong
The court did address this and ruled precisely on this point:
"Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are MOTIVATED BY FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS, NOT GENDER."
-Justice Edward Mansfield.