Author Topic: In Iowa, Judicial Activists state "hot" employees can be fired for being "hot"  (Read 664 times)

Offline njdudeabides

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Gender: Male
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/

The Iowa supreme court, a group of old, brainless white males, has said that employers can fire their employees because they are overly attractive. This sets a horrible legal precedence. This is a country where you earn your living based on your skills and talents, not on how you look. While affirmative action is clearly not the american way, discrimination is just as bad. These judges in Iowa have no respect for the constitution, are brainless, and all of them should resign or be impeached because they obviously are too stupid to serve on the state court. If we are going to protect ugly people, such as the fools on the Iowa supreme court, then we ought to protect good looking people as well.



Offline Darth Fife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/

The Iowa supreme court, a group of old, brainless white males, has said that employers can fire their employees because they are overly attractive. This sets a horrible legal precedence. This is a country where you earn your living based on your skills and talents, not on how you look. While affirmative action is clearly not the american way, discrimination is just as bad. These judges in Iowa have no respect for the constitution, are brainless, and all of them should resign or be impeached because they obviously are too stupid to serve on the state court. If we are going to protect ugly people, such as the fools on the Iowa supreme court, then we ought to protect good looking people as well.


These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!

It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.

It is none of the Government's damned business!
"You've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door
But no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"
-Tommy, The Who

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
  • Gender: Male
These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!

It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.

It is none of the Government's damned business!
Not to mention those employees who insist upon dressing inappropriately - even after it's brought to their attention. Anyone who has had a supervisory position, has run into those younger employees who can't tell the difference between a work place and "da club".
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Darth Fife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
George Picks a Secretary - seinfeld (The video's owner prevents external embedding)
"You've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door
But no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"
-Tommy, The Who

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265


She's reasonably attractive, but not that attractive.  I know tons of young women who should be worried about their job if this woman was fired for "being too attractive."  Sometimes it's the personality that adds to, or takes away from a woman's good looks.  I imagine that's the case here, since I see nothing special about this woman.

Honestly, this sounds like Muslim countries where women are beaten for showing skin because MEN just can't handle it.  The problem's not with the man who can't control himself, but must be with the woman!  And here I thought at least our culture passed the 7th century!

Online taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14304
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/

The Iowa supreme court, a group of old, brainless white males, has said that employers can fire their employees because they are overly attractive. This sets a horrible legal precedence. This is a country where you earn your living based on your skills and talents, not on how you look. While affirmative action is clearly not the american American way, discrimination is just as bad. These judges in Iowa have no respect for the constitution, are brainless, and all of them should resign or be impeached because they obviously are too stupid to serve on the state court. If we are going to protect ugly people, such as the fools on the Iowa supreme court, then we ought to protect good looking people as well.


The company should be able to fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  She is free to look for another job, and the employers are free to hire someone else.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 5201
  • Gender: Male
The company should be able to fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  She is free to look for another job, and the employers are free to hire someone else.

Another reason to get rid of unions.

Offline Bronx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
  • Gender: Male
Seen better had worse. I'm thinking this judge needs his eye checked. True she is beer goggles hot but not sober hot. She must have been some texter.
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

Bowtech Experience  70lb, QAD HDX, HHA DS 5519, 400 gr Black Eagle Carnivores, 100gr Grim Reaper, True-Fire Hardcore 4 thumb.

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12883
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
The company should be able to fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  She is free to look for another job, and the employers are free to hire someone else.

I have hired people for over 50 years and trained at least that many supervisors.

I generally find it's the lady having more brains than the persons she is working for is the problem.   But then I was not looking for looks, but brains as I could always learn something from them also. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

"Where is the $2,500 in savings Democrats and Obama promised me?"

Offline njdudeabides

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Gender: Male
These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!

It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.

It is none of the Government's damned business!

Everyone of these judges ought to re-read the 1st amendment which calls for the freedom of expression, and the civil rights act of 1964. The actions these activists in black robes allow for are in violation of both. I'm sick and tired of activist judges, and the Iowa supreme court is filled with activist judges.

Offline Patriot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Male
These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!

It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.

It is none of the Government's damned business!

The Constitution provides protection from discrimination when the employer is federal or state government.  However, employment discrimination laws go beyond what is explicitly in the Constitution to include the private workplace.   They protect against discrimination for specific categories of people, e.g. gender and race.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination  Even though this not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on these laws.  http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/employment-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html  One way to interpret some of the cases is that the Court has ruled that "freedom of association" is not guaranteed by the Constitution when it results in specific discrimination covered by the laws in question.

So bottom line:  It's not a Constitutional protection for employers, but being attractive is not a class that has been afforded protection.

Separate point - In this particular case, the fired employee might have a case of workplace sexual harassment.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 03:50:00 PM by USAPatriot »

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
  • Gender: Male
Everyone of these judges ought to re-read the 1st amendment which calls for the freedom of expression, and the civil rights act of 1964. The actions these activists in black robes allow for are in violation of both. I'm sick and tired of activist judges, and the Iowa supreme court is filled with activist judges.
Your right to Freedom of Expression doesn't mean we ar all required to chip in for your soapbox. The business is private property, the owner is not required to give you the means to express yourself. As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Why would any minority - like me for example - be stupid enough to want to work for a bigot? What are the chances of me getting a raise, or a better job? I want to work for someone who is actually glad to have me there.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Darth Fife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
The Constitution provides protection from discrimination when the employer is federal or state government.  However, employment discrimination laws go beyond what is explicitly in the Constitution to include the private workplace.   They protect against discrimination for specific categories of people, e.g. gender and race.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination  Even though this not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on these laws.  http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/employment-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html  One way to interpret some of the cases is that the Court has ruled that "freedom of association" is not guaranteed by the Constitution when it results in specific discrimination covered by the laws in question.

So bottom line:  It's not a Constitutional protection for employers, but being attractive is not a class that has been afforded protection.

Separate point - In this particular case, the fired employee might have a case of workplace sexual harassment.


As far as I'm concerned, all of those laws are Unconstitutional as they are all examples of the Federal Government seizing for itself, power and authority the Framers of the Constitution never intended it to have. 
"You've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door
But no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"
-Tommy, The Who

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
That would be a good angle. If she was fired because some "boss" found her sexually attractive, it is sexual harassment.

There is something wrong with losing your job because of someone elses FEELINGS about you.  She should win and a good lawyer should go with the sexual harassment angle.

Offline Darth Fife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
That would be a good angle. If she was fired because some "boss" found her sexually attractive, it is sexual harassment.

There is something wrong with losing your job because of someone elses FEELINGS about you.  She should win and a good lawyer should go with the sexual harassment angle.

Why is it when a woman uses sex to get what she wants in the workplace, is just sexual politics, but when a man does the same thing its sexual harassment? :huh:

"You've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door
But no one had the guts to leave the Temple!"
-Tommy, The Who

 

Powered by EzPortal