Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

I just read something on Twitter that fits you and many others like you perfectly:

[I]You weren't the gunman, but you didn't want to see gay people kissing in public.
You weren't the gunman, but you don't like gay characters on TV.
You weren't the gunman, but you think gay people are sinful and need saving.

You weren't the gunman, but you were upset when gay people earned the right to marry.
You weren't the gunman, but you use slurs for gay people.
You weren't the gunman, but you would vote against legal protections for gay people.
You weren't the gunman, but you're the culture who built him.

so he's not the gunman
=> not guilty, case closed

Of whom do you speak?

You

The Republicans who were all fake sympathy after Pulse and then proceeded to block a vote on a bill which would prevent discrimination against LGBTQ's in companies which work for the government - like getting fired for gay, or transgender, or non-gender-conform.

doubtful this bill would've prevented getting fired at :/

Spoiler:

incidentally why didn't they simply propose a bill to prevent getting fired for no reason?
or would that be too much progress?
cause in the Land of the Free corporates still have complete latitude to fire their employees at will & commoners go to work every day not knowing if they'll be returning to work the next day

[Falcon Horus]

Meanwhile in other "news" hot coffee might give you cancer.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/15/he...s-cancer-risk/

Burned my tongue yesterday sipping coffee... Burn my tongue several times a week, sometimes a day when consuming hot food and drinks.

The first thing my sister will say at the table, usually when I just took a bite: "It's hot."

That is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose such legislation. And it does NOT automatically mean it was "fake sympathy"

There's nothing legitimate about discrimination.

I understand the desire for being treated equally. And I agree with it. But that isn't what various groups want, they want special treatment, such as laws like this.

You clearly don't since you keep referring to them as special treatment and/or special groups.

You

Who me?
Why me?

doubtful this bill would've prevented getting fired at :/

Getting fired at - doubtful

Getting fired - maybe. Based on sexuality would simply not be a legitimate reason.

Spoiler:

incidentally why didn't they simply propose a bill to prevent getting fired for no reason?
or would that be too much progress?
cause in the Land of the Free corporates still have complete latitude to fire their employees at will & commoners go to work every day not knowing if they'll be returning to work the next day

In Belgium, the employer always has to give a reason when firing an employee. We receive a C4-document when fired and it must have a reason. It's been the law for 2 years now, I think.

[SoulReaver]

We receive a C4-document when fired

better read it from a distance (could be a trap)

[pookey]

If you think you have been unfairly dismissed you can take your employer to a Tribunal, and they will assess the situation to see if you have.
Basically, at first, you have, i think, one verbal and two written warning, then a final one, each written warning lasts 3 months

[Falcon Horus]

better read it from a distance (could be a trap)

Indeed.
I knew you'd get the irony of the thing.

If you think you have been unfairly dismissed you can take your employer to a Tribunal, and they will assess the situation to see if you have.
Basically, at first, you have, i think, one verbal and two written warning, then a final one, each written warning lasts 3 months

Pretty much.

[Annoyed]

Don't know about the setup where you guys are, but NY is a work at will state. You can be fired for whatever and they don't have to justify it.

[Coco Pops]

We receive a C4-document when fired and it must have a reason. It's been the law for 2 years now, I think.

Careful that doesn't blow up in your face

[jelgate]

Don't know about the setup where you guys are, but NY is a work at will state. You can be fired for whatever and they don't have to justify it.

My BS meter is going off

[Ian-S]

Well, this one will be trending soon enough...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36550304
(Labour MP shot and killed in Yorkshire UK)

Shameful TV coverage so far with reporters trying to coax witnesses into speculating whether race/religious motives were behind it (one guy got really annoyed with a reporter on Sky).

Wonder how long it'll be before some bright spark takes to twitter demanding guns be banned in the UK.....

[Annoyed]

You clearly don't since you keep referring to them as special treatment and/or special groups.

How do you figure? If you have laws such as "you cannot fire such and such group member because of _____", by definition, that group has special advantage over people not belonging to some group.

If "equal protection under the law" is the goal, the laws have to be equal for everyone, without special advantages.

In RW practical applications, it's even messier. If an employer fires group member X, all that group member has to claim is that he was fired for being in that group, and the employer finds himself on the end of a lawsuit from the state, which even if the claim is eventually found to be unjustified, will be an expense for the business.
And there are plenty of ambulance chasers which will pursue that kind of work.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Everyone belongs to one group or another.. Even you. You have protection from being fired because of your age. Your gender and your race made it more likely for you to be hired in the first place.

All the other "special" groups just want the same rights and protection that you have.

[Falcon Horus]

Careful that doesn't blow up in your face

it didn't last time. I handled it with care.

It might next time...

How do you figure? If you have laws such as "you cannot fire such and such group member because of _____", by definition, that group has special advantage over people not belonging to some group.

What the F?

If "equal protection under the law" is the goal, the laws have to be equal for everyone, without special advantages.

Equal protection under the law, thus a law stating "cannot be fired for reasons of gender, sexuality, race, religion, nationality, age".

Do you see? That's not asking for "special" treatment, that's simply being equal to all the rest of the working populace.

Sexuality covers LGB
Gender TQIMF
Race -- any color on Earth
Nationality -- expats or legitimate work visas
Age -- from 18 to 67 (using the current age of retirement in Belgium here)*

* (not counting students or kids, since they fall under different work laws)

[Annoyed]

Equal protection under the law, thus a law stating "cannot be fired for reasons of gender, sexuality, race, religion, nationality, age".

Do you see? That's not asking for "special" treatment, that's simply being equal to all the rest of the working populace.

Sexuality covers LGB
Gender TQIMF
Race -- any color on Earth
Nationality -- expats or legitimate work visas
Age -- from 18 to 67 (using the current age of retirement in Belgium here)*

* (not counting students or kids, since they fall under different work laws)

If that's the case, why do we constantly see this, that or the other "group" pressing for special laws to be enacted to protect that particular group?

[pookey]

Maybe it should just say one law for all humans, full stop

[The Flyattractor]

But that would put power hungry politicians and lawyers out of work.



AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Cause then they would be hanging out on street corners bothering the rest of us....