The evidence speaks for itself.


So when it comes to the employee's capabilities regarding strike, government or non-government scenario, you also hold to that ideal?


You bore me with these stupid strawman arguments.
Quite frankly, unless I misunderstand where you are going with this, this opens the door for "white v black" hospitals, drinking fountains, etc, etc, etc...
After all, if people can have a right, but not at a "specific" location...


Hopefully I am misunderstanding your focus of your reply.
(As a clue to you, part of the reason I am uncertain as to where you are going is because what you claim is coming from my argument IS NOT actually coming from my argument...)


So, you quote me as saying "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", and then YOU CLAIM that I "insinuated" "certain place"...
And THAT is your contradiction...

You can't even intelligibly argue against what I AM saying. You must perpetually devolve into these lame strawman approaches.

To further my previous analogy, we have essentially given people a surgical mask and you insist that this means we are trying to protect them from a sandstorm.

What is established IS NOT a "right to work" at any specific place.
The fact that this is NOT a right is clearly demonstrated by how many firings occur legally. How many applicants are legally turned away.
One cannot intelligently look at reality and pretend that there is ANY employment right "at a certain place".

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I think if an employee refuses to work, they just quit their job. And I would hope a smart employer would hire someone to replace them.

Yes. Excluding govt property.

I'm not "going" anywhere.


You did.

Excellent. So there is no right to work at any certain place. I ****ing agree. Glad you do too. Which means any employer should be perfectly free to hire and fire whomever the **** they want for whatever reason they want. Glad to see you finally see the light.

__________________


You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

That's obviously one possibility, and even more obviously an incomplete response to the actual issue raised.
But as expected, your response optimizes the EMPLOYER'S "freedoms" while minimalizing the freedoms of the employees.


So you would support the capability for private business to establish "whites only" hospitals.
If perhaps the blacks had to drive to a veterinarian in the next county, or another hospital in the next state for service you would be fine with that?


You are also not explaining the strawman either.
So if you have no interest in elaborating on what words you're trying to put in my mouth, I have no interest in trying to figure them out either...


No. I did not.
Anybody can review this discussion and clearly see "certain places" is a concept YOU originated.
Not me.
If you believe otherwise, quote me and tell me the post number where I supposedly brought this up...



And it only took you an excessive amount of posts to recognize that...
Congratz!


Somehow, I predict this progress will be very temporary...


From an objective stand-point, I find your response quite amusing.
My comments there were talking simply about the REALITY of what our law establishes. How it ACTUALLY works, which does NOT result in a situation where the employer has no restrictions on hiring / firing whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

You are trying to claim "contradiction" based boringly on assumed / implied statements, while refusing to accurately broach the reality of the legal landscape.
It's effectively like trying to argue that John must be employed because he leaves the house in the morning with a brief-case.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I've shown you several time, but I'll say it one more time for the cheap seats:
The EEOC places restrictions on why a private business owner, operating on private property, can fire or refuse to hire an employee. This is an infringment on the owners private property rights and freedom of association, the owner is not in complete control of who accesses his property.

That would be the laws that says you can't fire someone because they're pregnant, black, muslim. etc.

Skipping through the drivel and misdirection......

This would be the giant, glaring falacy to your entire argument. You have no right to anything that I own. If I own the business and the property its on you have no right to tell me who I will let access it or for what reasons I deny access. If you don't like my hiring practices, fine, shout it to the nation, thats your right. If you want to picket my business, go for it, thats your right. But don't do it on my property, because your correct when you say "your rights end where mine begin" and in this case mine begin at the property line.

Again, it's not OK to infringe upon someone's rights just because your only doing it a little bit. Thats like saying "you have freedom of religion except on tuesdays, so don't worry you still have the other 6 days".

Ever hear of "work from home"?


Honestly. This level of sea-lawyering is pointless.
Our rights in this country are typically NOT absolute.


Well then, why do you not address those head-on instead of this rephrasing b.s.
The unfortunate reality for you is that when a person starts a business and employs people, they are already stepping away from a simple "private property" scenario.
You don't like it? Don't employ people.


Translation: Ignoring the response to various arguments which lurch will simply repeat later...


The glaring fallacy in your reply being that I am not claiming a right to your property.


Next time, can you begin your rant with "Once upon a time..."
That will help establish it for what it is. Something that exists in your mind but not in reality.

Back in the real world, if I don't like your hiring practices and if they violate the Civil Rights Act I get to sue your ass.
Because Employment IS covered under the Civil Rights Act.
Employment IS CRUCIAL to our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".


Again, I am not claiming that it's OK to infringe upon someone's rights just because it's only a little bit...


The pathetic part is that I EXPLICITLY STATED I was not making that argument in the VERY POST YOU RESPONDED TO. But you "Skipped over" what you claimed was "drivel", only to have to repeat yourself again because you couldn't be bothered with understanding what I am not saying....

Can you just write that down and the next time you try to reply with anything like the above, remind yourself of what I am and am NOT saying?

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

The employee has the complete freedom to apply for work at any employer he or she wishes and accept work at any employer who is willing to hire them. That's a lot of freedom.


Fine with it legally, absolutely.

That's because there isn't one.

I have no clue what you're talking about and also no interest in trying to figure it out.

We're talking about AN employer. A single employer. That is a CERTAIN PLACE.

That was my position from the get go, sweetie. I'm just glad YOU finally agree. Individuals have no right to work at any particular company, thus employers should have the freedom to hire/fire whomever they want.


Yes, I know. A legal situation that I obviously disagree with, hence the debate. Like I said, employers SHOULD have the right to hire/fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want. And since you agree that people do not have any legal right to work at any individual company, you must also agree with that. It's the only logical conclusion to come to. Any conclusion that involves limiting the private employer's freedom to hire/fire is obviously trying to establish an person's right to work there - which you just said they don't have.

Perhaps someday you will make sense.

__________________


You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

They are not stepping away from anything, they are stepping into an area where a entitlement minded government feels it can legislate away their rights.
You don't like the way someone hires/ fires? Go work somewhere else or start your own business.

If I came up to you and said "Your fired because I've decided not to employ men." and you use the power of gov't to deny me the right to boot you off my property, then you are making a claim to my property. You feel you are "entitled" to not be fired for that reason. This is wrong, you have no right to my property.

True, I never said it wasn't the law, but being the law doesn't make it right and doesn't mean those rights the CRA usurps disappear. In many states the law used to say blacks couldn't own property, I think we would
both agree the law was wrong and it was infringing upon peoples rights.

Thats exactly what your doing by backing the infringment of private property rights by not leaving hiring/ firing practices of private businesses to the sole discretion of the owner.

Sigh.
Once again, the government is not just doing this on its own.
What you refer to as "entitlement" is what is generally accepted as Civil Rights.

Quite frankly, maybe I should stop trying to educate you on this and just mimic your tactic.
Refer to the "entitlements" of business (i.e. right to association / rights regarding property)


I'm sorry, but when faced with an impingement on rights it is not a legitimate answer to tell somebody to get their rights somewhere else.
Whether you like it or not, Employment is classified as a Civil Right.


Feh.
The funny thing is that you can do that and you do have the capability to boot me off your property.
But it won't be the "boot me off your property" that you will get in trouble for. THAT property right isn't the bone of contention there.

It's the FIRING (regardless of whether or not I am on your property) which is the issue.
You could call me up and fire me while I am at home, and the exact same problem comes into play.
Me being on your property does nothing to exacerbate that situation.


I, a vast majority of other Americans, and the government recognize that it is violating my civil rights to be fired for that reason.
You feel you are "entitled" to have property rights and association rights.


And we could logistically recognize how such a position impinges upon the rights of blacks, violating their rights to further other people's "entitlements"
You are doing the same thing here...


No. I am not.
I have explained this to you so many times that at this stage it's pathetic you can't get it.
YOU are claiming that I am saying "A", therefore "B".
I am saying that I am NOT saying "A", therefore "B".
I am saying that "A", therefore your argument of "C" is not valid.

I find it hilarious that you keep on trying to tell me what I am arguing, despite the fact that I point out REPEATEDLY that I am not arguing that.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Sadly for you, that is not sufficient to satisfy civil rights.


While you are painstakingly consistent


Except for the part where you did try to claim I was saying something I clearly was NOT saying.
Involved a lot of you saying "You said 'X'", and then pretending I was insinuating apple (when I never said apple).


An employer is a place...
Remind me never to play "Person, Place, or Thing" with you...


And there you got lost again.
The problem is NOT me recognizing your position.
The problem is you ACCURATELY ADMITTING what my position is.

It's funny how lost you are, because you went from
* Pretending I was saying there was a right to work at a certain place.
* Understanding I was NOT saying there was a right to work at a certain place.
to
* Pretending this was all about me not understanding your position...



So close, but so far away.
The two arguments you just presented are not logically connected, except in your mind.
The right IS NOT about "working at any particular company", but rather regarding employment civil rights and legal vs illegal grounds for termination.



You're interrupting my comment to ignore the actual point being made with those two paragraphs...

And the sad part is that because you interrupted the logical flow between those two statements, it confused you regarding the final point, leading you to comment:
That DID make sense, but lost its meaning because you interrupted the two parts of the point.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Sadly for many of us

Hence the term 'insinuate'.


It's not my job to 'admit' your position. That's your job.

Which you were

Hence the contradiction.


Illegal grounds for termination implies the individual has some legal claim to a specific job (the one they were working)


No, it didn't make sense. Except maybe in your own mind.

__________________


You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks