Republican bill would let employers fire people for sex outside of marriage

^
You're right, It's probably not going to happen. Labrador who authored this bill and his Governor buddy Otter pitch fits. They already tried to change the state constitution after the Gay Marriage overturning by the Ninth Circuit here, so that the US government couldn't override anymore state bans. We voted that down, because it was overall, a corrupt bill.

originally posted by: CB328

if i am a morally based company, i would have every right to stipulate moral guidelines to my employees

Only for work, you have no right to tell people what they can do on their free time, unless it's illegal. And companies are not "morally" based, they're profit based, and many of them are immoral. If you want to preach morality to people then be a priest, not an employer.

Except most companies will make you sign clauses that tell you that if you "embarrass" the company you could be terminated.

Brendan Eich "embarrassed" Mozilla. Did you defend him? If not, then you are very much in favor of morality clauses when it's morality you approve of.

I don't know who he is or what he did so of course I didn't defend him.

Next stupid question?

a reply to: CB328

The problems stem much deeper than simple party lines.

Neither one party or the other has yours, nor my best interests at heart.

If anyone thinks that's true, I've got a planet for you to buy.

I read the bill, it actually promotes discrimination base on religion by a person or institutions against those that are of different believes and then these discriminatory acts will be protected

Is not a first amendment protection but a religious believes protection.

Is not going to pass and if for some reason does, it will end up in the supreme court.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CB328

Not sure what labor laws are like in other states, but in Texas employment is kind of like an agreement between 2 parties that isn't contractually binding unless otherwise stipulated.

The only rules that an employer must follow: federal and state laws, and their own policy manual. Obviously you can term someone without cause, but if you do you will have your unemployment account charged to compensate the employee.

Thus, if i am a morally based company, i would have every right to stipulate moral guidelines to my employees. It is already a common practice in contracts ("Morality clause").

So why are your jimmies rustled?

Well, it largely comes down to how much control should an employer have over an employees life if they can't demonstrate it affecting their workplace performance? If your employer doesn't like birds, can they stipulate you must get rid of your pet parrot you've had for 30 years? If you like to hang out in glory holes can they stipulate you can't do that? What if you partake in a vice the employer approves of?

At will employment is essentially a states rights issue, which is where it should remain if it must exist at all. The problem with it, is that in allowing a person to be fired for anything, they really can be fired for anything. Maybe you have a Republican bumper sticker while your employer favors Democrats? You're out of a job. Maybe you bought a Japanese car and your employer thinks it's not patriotic to buy anything other than American, you're out of a job.

I find the idea of such an over reaching employment contract repugnant. The only thing that should matter if if the work being paid for is getting done adequately. What the person does outside of work shouldn't matter provided they aren't bringing it to work. For example, if someone likes to get high after work it's fine. If they come into work high it's not fine.

Contracts with moral and other behavioral clauses outside the workplace should be void.

Now, outside of all of that. Religion is meant to be a personal code of conduct. Forcing others to adhere to your own code of conduct goes well beyond the bounds of what religion is for. That's what the law is for.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Brendan Eich "embarrassed" Mozilla. Did you defend him? If not, then you are very much in favor of morality clauses when it's morality you approve of.

I did. Who cares if he gave money to a group? What was he doing professionally that was disruptive of his job? All accounts are that he was a great executive and programmer. Ruining a career over choices in his personal life is despicable.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Now, outside of all of that. Religion is meant to be a personal code of conduct. Forcing others to adhere to your own code of conduct goes well beyond the bounds of what religion is for. That's what the law is for.

Exactly is a code of believes and a personal choice, the same way that others are free to exercise their own personal choices, taking away those choices base on nothing but personal believes is wrong and is forcing others to give away their freedom of their own choices and conform to one persons believes..

When my freedom starts and your ends.

Double edge here.

I wonder if Raul Labrador is a democrat plant too. Another govment intrusive law and etc.,etc.,......

a reply to: CB328

not that im in support of this law in the slightest but Colorado supreme court ruled you can be fired for off work legal marijuana use so you can be fired for stuff you do on your own time even if legal

again i dont think this is right in either case just bringing it up that as shady as it sounds they can fire you for off work conduct

www.newsweek.com... so even fi you have a prescription

Colorado's Supreme Court upheld a ruling Monday that allows for a company to fire an employee for failing a drug test, even if the employee is legally licensed to use marijuana for medical reasons. Colorado is one of 23 states that has legalized medical marijuana. The state has also allowed recreational marijuana use. Brandon Coats was fired from his job at Dish Network in 2010 after he tested positive for THC, the psychoactive chemical in cannabis. Coats, who is quadriplegic, is licensed by the state to possess and use medical marijuana and said he never used the drug on the clock. But Dish Network argued that its zero tolerance drug policy means that whether or not Coats used at work was irrelevant—he tested positive for THC, which can remain in a user's hair, blood and other substances for weeks after using. Colorado law says employees cannot be fired for legal activities that happen outside work. Dish agreed Coats did not use marijuana on the job, but the Colorado Supreme Court found that because marijuana use is illegal under federal law, Coats's use was not legal, and therefore not protected under Colorado law.

so i guess thsi was under its federally illegal but i still dont think what people do in their off time should result in firing and whatnot unless it was a public debacle (walking around town with a 4 footer or embarassing the company etc)

a reply to: reldra

at-will also means that your employer does not have to tell you why they are firing you. so if they don't say that's why they are firing you, how could you prove discrimination?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CB328

Conduct outside of the workplace.

Fine. Then the NFL, MLB, NBA and the NHL need to stop fining, firing or suspending their players for what happens on their own time. There is no difference.

I wish there was a law that stipulated sex during marriage.