The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

No, they just have the right to terminate the business's "place of business" at their discretion based on your argument.
You can go find a landlord that will "bake you another lease" so to speak.

As I said earlier, unless he is in violation of the law(and I'm not 100% sure of that), or the existing terms of the lease, the landlord has to honor the existing lease until it expires.

The nasty side of me that hopes people reap what they sow wants that as well. My better side hopes they realise what kind of backwards step they would be taking by codifying legal precedent to discriminate.

Or, the ruling could reaffirm the rights to Freedom of Religion and to operate one's business as the owner sees fit.

As I've said, there are are two legitimate points of view in this.

[aretood2]

As I said earlier, unless he is in violation of the law(and I'm not 100% sure of that), or the existing terms of the lease, the landlord has to honor the existing lease until it expires.

Or, the ruling could reaffirm the rights to Freedom of Religion and to operate one's business as the owner sees fit.

As I've said, there are are two legitimate points of view in this.

I think this has to do more with the former than with the latter.

[garhkal]

The nasty side of me that hopes people reap what they sow wants that as well. My better side hopes they realise what kind of backwards step they would be taking by codifying legal precedent to discriminate.

So firms being allowed to charge extra to smokers, or firms saying 'we won't hire you if you smoke' doesn't already do that, Codify discrimination?

[Gatefan1976]

So firms being allowed to charge extra to smokers, or firms saying 'we won't hire you if you smoke' doesn't already do that, Codify discrimination?

That's not legal here Garhkal, if it's legal in the USA, then yes, it does codify employment based discrimination, and I take a rather dim view of that as well. The -only- industry I see smoking as a valid reason to "discriminate" is insurance because being a smoker is not a "unique exception", merely another factor in a mathematical equation.
Otherwise (now sit down bro)
It's SJW Bulldust.
The most common claim is that people taking a smoke break are not productive because they "loose" the time it takes to go outside and have one, yet nothing is said about people checking their phones, or surfing the net, or talking at the water cooler because -more- people do that, and the smokers are easy targets to blame.

[Annoyed]

That's not legal here Garhkal, if it's legal in the USA, then yes, it does codify employment based discrimination, and I take a rather dim view of that as well. The -only- industry I see smoking as a valid reason to "discriminate" is insurance because being a smoker is not a "unique exception", merely another factor in a mathematical equation.
Otherwise (now sit down bro)
It's SJW Bulldust.
The most common claim is that people taking a smoke break are not productive because they "loose" the time it takes to go outside and have one, yet nothing is said about people checking their phones, or surfing the net, or talking at the water cooler because -more- people do that, and the smokers are easy targets to blame.

It is legal here. My employer charges a 10% tobacco penalty on your portion of the health insurance premium if you smoke.
30-40 years ago, the push to turn smokers into social pariahs began, and it's been moving along ever since.
Incrementalism.

[garhkal]

That's not legal here Garhkal, if it's legal in the USA, then yes, it does codify employment based discrimination, and I take a rather dim view of that as well. The -only- industry I see smoking as a valid reason to "discriminate" is insurance because being a smoker is not a "unique exception", merely another factor in a mathematical equation.

Unfortunately it IS so..
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...t-smokers.html

SO as you say, it is bull dust!

[aretood2]

So firms being allowed to charge extra to smokers, or firms saying 'we won't hire you if you smoke' doesn't already do that, Codify discrimination?

Unfortunately it IS so..
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...t-smokers.html

SO as you say, it is bull dust!

Taking a few breaks here, and there is just overall beneficial for a worker and by extension their productivity. Be it for bathroom use, religious act, smoking, or saying hi to a friend at the water cooler. In this we can agree.

[garhkal]

Taking a few breaks here, and there is just overall beneficial for a worker and by extension their productivity. Be it for bathroom use, religious act, smoking, or saying hi to a friend at the water cooler. In this we can agree.

Plus i know people that spend MORE time not working, cause they are surfing shopping sites, than those i knew of who took smoke breaks.

AND In the military, we often got More "networking" done on the smoke pits!

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, we have got a little derailed here, let me show my thinking better

It is legal here. My employer charges a 10% tobacco penalty on your portion of the health insurance premium if you smoke.

Right, but as you can see from my response, INSURANCE is about the only area where it makes sense. What you are dealing with is not an issue of "workplace discrimination", but the workplace passing along the extra cost of covering someone, to them.
This is the idiocy of work based health insurance and if it was not so prevalent in the USA, it would not be a "workplace discrimination" issue at all.

30-40 years ago, the push to turn smokers into social pariahs began, and it's been moving along ever since.
Incrementalism.

Well, this is tied to what I said about people surfing the net, or chatting, or whatever. Smoking is seen as "worse" than the others because they are an easy target, and work provides your insurance, one provides cover for the other.
As for incrementalism, I see that more as the private sector taking on roles they should never have been allowed to take on and now abusing people for it by replacing the government, without the restrictions imposed on the government.

Unfortunately it IS so..
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_lif...t-smokers.html

SO as you say, it is bull dust!

[/quote]
Again, only because the vast majority of people in the insurance market in the US get their insurance through work. Something that should be a right is now bandied about like a perk.

Taking a few breaks here, and there is just overall beneficial for a worker and by extension their productivity. Be it for bathroom use, religious act, smoking, or saying hi to a friend at the water cooler. In this we can agree.

Indeed it is.

Plus i know people that spend MORE time not working, cause they are surfing shopping sites, than those i knew of who took smoke breaks.

AND In the military, we often got More "networking" done on the smoke pits!

And yet, the smokers get handicapped -again- for the fact that something that should not be a workplace issue, is.

[Starsaber]

Well, this is tied to what I said about people surfing the net, or chatting, or whatever. Smoking is seen as "worse" than the others because they are an easy target, and work provides your insurance, one provides cover for the other.

Smoking is seen as worse than the others because it has negative effects on the health of people around you, not just you.

[mad_gater]

Smoking is seen as worse than the others because it has negative effects on the health of people around you, not just you.

I agree there...wouldn't surprise me if I hae some permanent lung damage from all the second hand smoke I was exposed to as a kid at my graandparents' house (who were heavy smokers)

[Gatefan1976]

Smoking is seen as worse than the others because it has negative effects on the health of people around you, not just you.

I agree there...wouldn't surprise me if I hae some permanent lung damage from all the second hand smoke I was exposed to as a kid at my graandparents' house (who were heavy smokers)

Sure, but most places you have to move away or go to designated smoking area's to mitigate that. What I am talking about here is the time factor. If X took 7 mins out to have a smoke, they would get more flack than someone taking 7 mins out to have a chat.

[garhkal]

And yet, the smokers get handicapped -again- for the fact that something that should not be a workplace issue, is.

Which i fully agree with, but it unfortunately IS a work place issue.. There's quite a few companies which won't even HIRE you if you smoke (CVS!) and that's not just "you can't smoke on company time", but "IF you smoke period, we don't want you"...?!
Can you imagine the outrage if they said that towards say "If you do medical MJ, we don't want you period"??

[Gatefan1976]

Which i fully agree with, but it unfortunately IS a work place issue.. There's quite a few companies which won't even HIRE you if you smoke (CVS!) and that's not just "you can't smoke on company time", but "IF you smoke period, we don't want you"...?!

Yes, that is discrimination.

Can you imagine the outrage if they said that towards say "If you do medical MJ, we don't want you period"??

I can, because we do not have medical MJ out here legally as of yet.

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...omo-transcript