Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

"Equal" doesn't mean "Same": Where Civil Rights went wrong

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Equal" doesn't mean "Same": Where Civil Rights went wrong

    This is something that's been becoming more and more problematic over the past few years. There has been a HUGE upwelling of support for gay rights, African America rights, indigent rights, atheist rights, etc, etc. Inevitably the reasoning behind this support turns on the spindle of "We're all equal". Well, yes, we are all equal....but that doesn't mean that we are also all the same.

    A black woman, a gay man, and a heterosexual caucasian should all be given equal treatment under the law. Each should be presumed to be innocent unless it can be proved that they are not. They should all be afforded reasonable representation. They should all have equal access to public amenities. That's simply treating people with dignity and respect and it's a foundational part of a free society. All that, however, doesn't mean that each of these people should get the same treatment.

    "Why not?", you ask. Why should it be OK for a black guy to get sentenced to 20 years for the same crime a white guy only got 2 years for?

    The answer is simple. The commonality of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or whatever does not necessarily make these people the same.

    While we'd all agree that if a black guy stole a 6 pack from the local convenience store and a white guy did the same their sentence should be the same that determination might well change if additional circumstances are considered. What if the black guy got busted for the 10th time and the white guy got busted for the first time? Should their sentences still be the same?

    The problem we have when it comes to civil rights is that we class people based on a certain characteristic, not the totality of their personhood.

    While a homosexual may be "equal to" a heterosexual for purposes of legal representation or common decency that doesn't mean they are "the same" as a heterosexual...or even the same as another homosexual. Heck, I seriously doubt that most homosexuals (or heterosexuals) would like to be treated "the same as" their neighbor or co-worker in all circumstances. Our diversity as a species and as individuals is important to all of us. It's those diversities that we choose to define ourselves and how we compare ourselves to our peers. It's how we gauge "success" and "happiness".

    When we start lumping people into one or another class based on single characteristics we do ourselves a deep disservice. We start ignoring other aspects of each others makeup and, to some extent, dehumanize those people. Keep in mind that this applies even when that characteristic is ideological as opposed to physical.

    When a baker in Colorado chooses not to bake a cake for a gay wedding or Phil Robertson chooses to voice his opinion on sin that is no different than a homosexual who chooses to join a gay parade or boycott a TV show. It's all an expression of individuality..."free speech", if you will.

  • #2
    Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

    And when gays get upset at phil robertson or that bakery, it is of course their right to BITCH about it using their 1st amendment rights just as it was the baker and mr. robertsons right to say something in the first place. if the gays hurt them in the court of public opinion and they lose business or respect etc then those are the CONSEQUENCES of their speech. not legal but social.
    THATS Freedom.

    I think race etc really shouldn't be looked at at all. Its phenotype thats not important (except as to personal preferences. ) to anything. Same as homosexuality. No one should get less or more of sentence based upon phenotype. everyone should be judged on merit of their acitons. got priors? probably going in. first time? probably probation. (for the 6 pack).

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

      Luther, I agree. In both of your cases the government should stay the hell out of it, and just let it be.

      But no. The liberals / progressives just love to create protected classes and force the special cases on the rest of us. What they are doing, whether they realize it or not, is just creating another class of people that are actively being discriminated against by the force of public policy. How 'just' does this discrimination measure up against their ideals and goals, I wonder.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        Luther, I agree. In both of your cases the government should stay the hell out of it, and just let it be.

        But no. The liberals / progressives just love to create protected classes and force the special cases on the rest of us. What they are doing, whether they realize it or not, is just creating another class of people that are actively being discriminated against by the force of public policy. How 'just' does this discrimination measure up against their ideals and goals, I wonder.
        the government is taking phil robertson into custody for free speech eh?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

          Griping about someone else's opinion is fine and dandy. Taking coercive action to penalize an individual for their opinion is not.

          Feel free to boycott. Feel free to express your opinion and raise awareness of your issues. That's all well and good.

          What isn't good is when the coercive power of government is used to choose which opinions will be allowed and which will not.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

            Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
            Griping about someone else's opinion is fine and dandy. Taking coercive action to penalize an individual for their opinion is not.

            Feel free to boycott. Feel free to express your opinion and raise awareness of your issues. That's all well and good.

            What isn't good is when the coercive power of government is used to choose which opinions will be allowed and which will not.
            Agreed. That's not the government's role, nor should it be.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

              Rights are actions you are allowed to take. Right are not goods and services you receive. Rights do not confer an obligation onto others.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
                Griping about someone else's opinion is fine and dandy. Taking coercive action to penalize an individual for their opinion is not.

                Feel free to boycott. Feel free to express your opinion and raise awareness of your issues. That's all well and good.

                What isn't good is when the coercive power of government is used to choose which opinions will be allowed and which will not.
                In the bakery example, the bolded holds sway. Indeed the government acts wrongly there, as I stated in that thread that was started over it. Haven't seen any government censure on phil robertson though. Unless you're telling me hearst and disney who own AE are the gubmint. Are they the gubmint? Cause that would explain alot about this ..... wait for it..... wait for it........ mickey mouse outfit

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  In the bakery example, the bolded holds sway. Indeed the government acts wrongly there, as I stated in that thread that was started over it. Haven't seen any government censure on phil robertson though. Unless you're telling me hearst and disney who own AE are the gubmint. Are they the gubmint? Cause that would explain alot about this ..... wait for it..... wait for it........ mickey mouse outfit
                  My comment was with regard to civil rights legislation in general.

                  A&E can do whatever they want about Phil but if I can an employee for expressing pro-homosexual opinions.....what do you think would happen to me?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                    Originally posted by reality View Post
                    In the bakery example, the bolded holds sway. Indeed the government acts wrongly there, as I stated in that thread that was started over it. Haven't seen any government censure on phil robertson though. Unless you're telling me hearst and disney who own AE are the gubmint. Are they the gubmint? Cause that would explain alot about this ..... wait for it..... wait for it........ mickey mouse outfit
                    I was waiting for that ever since I was in a post earlier that Disney was part owner of A&E. Well done!

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                      Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
                      My comment was with regard to civil rights legislation in general.

                      A&E can do whatever they want about Phil but if I can an employee for expressing pro-homosexual opinions.....what do you think would happen to me?
                      Are you in an at will employment state? Cause you can hire or fire for good cause, bad cause, or NO CAUSE at all in that case. 30 something states have that. Pretty sure az is one of them. What would happen? People would call you an asshole. Some would break the law perhaps and attack or otherwise actually harrass you. You'd most likely be the subject of some form of protest/boycott. Might get your face in the news. You would probably be footing unemployment compensation for them through az's equivalent of the texas workforce commission. Of course you could avoid that by NOT saying "i'm firing you cause you said nice things about gays an I don like me no pro gay employees" and instead just say "you're being let go. here's your check, theres the door". Course thats if you don't want to be a dumbass about it. It is your sacred right to be a dumbass about it if you like though.

                      Can't say you'd face legal censure from the gov though. Maybe your ex employee wins a small civil suit for wrongful termination. Which is again why you just say "you're fired" not "you're fired because I don't like pro gays as employees".

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                        I think you will find that "at will" statutes get tossed in the circular file when it comes to discrimination.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                          Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
                          I think you will find that "at will" statutes get tossed in the circular file when it comes to discrimination.
                          no they don't, you just don't understand what that means. at will means you can hire fire for good cause, no cause, bad cause. similarly an employee may stay or go at will for good cause no cause or bad cause. what kinda cause it is tends to have an effect on whether you get compensation and how much. no cause? low level unemployment. bad cause? depends on the cause but wrongful term maybe discrimination if they can prove it outright (which is again why you DON"T say so. see no cause) Good cause? They don't get a dime.
                          Same with 2 weeks notice. At will just means you aren't a slave under contract. You don't HAVE to stay the 2 weeks, but you might want to to get that last pay check for said 2 weeks. You don't HAVE to keep someone on, just find fireable cause (not hard) or cite no cause and pay low unemployment for a tic.
                          You're making the claim that it so bad, that at wills get thrown in the trash. Got a link?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                            Originally posted by reality View Post
                            no they don't, you just don't understand what that means. at will means you can hire fire for good cause, no cause, bad cause. similarly an employee may stay or go at will for good cause no cause or bad cause. what kinda cause it is tends to have an effect on whether you get compensation and how much. no cause? low level unemployment. bad cause? depends on the cause but wrongful term maybe discrimination if they can prove it outright (which is again why you DON"T say so. see no cause) Good cause? They don't get a dime.
                            Same with 2 weeks notice. At will just means you aren't a slave under contract. You don't HAVE to stay the 2 weeks, but you might want to to get that last pay check for said 2 weeks. You don't HAVE to keep someone on, just find fireable cause (not hard) or cite no cause and pay low unemployment for a tic.
                            You're making the claim that it so bad, that at wills get thrown in the trash. Got a link?
                            Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

                            A violation of the CRA obviates any "at will" claim on the part of the employer. In practice what tends to happen is that an employee who believe that they have been wrongfully terminated based on a protection under the CRA will prosecute on that basis and the employer will lose his ass unless he can come up with something else. The result is that only "Just Cause" terminations are a safe bet for an employer.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: &quot;Equal&quot; doesn't mean &quot;Same&quot;: Where Civil Rights went wrong

                              Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
                              Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

                              A violation of the CRA obviates any "at will" claim on the part of the employer. In practice what tends to happen is that an employee who believe that they have been wrongfully terminated based on a protection under the CRA will prosecute on that basis and the employer will lose his ass unless he can come up with something else. The result is that only "Just Cause" terminations are a safe bet for an employer.
                              From your link first para: The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination.\

                              Don't see sex pref in there so you're safe in your example.

                              There are public policy exemptions but they stem from the law. I don't recall there being a lot of laws protecting gays in az. In fact didn't yall sign on to doma etc? From your link: The common law, or othe laws set forth by a state legislature, creates an express or implied public policy, which will be undermined if employers are permitted to fire their employees in violation of that public policy.

                              Then there's this from your link: Many employers insert language into their handbooks and manuals in an effort to avoid this type of consequence, to the effect of, "Nothing in this manual consitutes a contract of employment between the employer and its employees, and the employer may at its discretion elect not to follow any guidelines or procedures set forth herein in association with employee discipline or termination."


                              You just have to cover your ass. That link didn't prove what you wanted. Care to try another?


                              Besides: Like I said, just cause is the only safe bet EVER. In ANYTHING. Thats why if its BAD cause you cite NO cause and pay MINOR unemployment claims. say you can't afford them or some bullshit. Or that you two have personal differences. Hell you think he's an asshole because he styles his hair funny or some shit. Yall don't get along, you are the employer you wish him to no longer be the employed so let it be written so let it be done. Nothing wrong with that.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X