Doctor lays off Obama voter

You didn't answer the question. What if a liberal boss fired someone for voting for George W. Bush a few years ago?

 

Looking back, I'm the only person you posed that question to, and I did answer. I would have no problem with someone firing an employee because they voted for G.W. Bush. I'd have no problem with a liberal firing an employee because the employee was conservative. I'd have no problem with an employer firing a person because the person was Christian. An employer should be able to fire any person for any reason.

 

Are there any limits to an employer's power, in your mind?

 

Certainly, beating the employee with a stick would be bad. Murdering an employee would be bad. Negotiating pay with an employee and then failing to pay as negotiated is bad.

 

I am glad there are laws to prevent discrimination over age, religion, gender, etc. Maybe you also think a lunch counter owner in the 50s was right for not letting blacks eat there. Or a bus line making black folks sit at the back of the bus. Sickening.

 

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

There's a difference between what I think is right and what I think a private business should be allowed to do. I don't think it is right that a privately owned restaurant deny service to someone based upon their skin color, but I do think they should be allowed to make that choice. I would choose not to spend my money in that business and if enough people made that choice, then the business would be forced to close. It isn't the government's job, however, to make those choices for private business.

 

Sure it is. The government can regulate commerce and business practices. Look what life was like in the 50s for blacks. It took government intervention to force change.

When you are fired for being whatever you are, come back and tell us how good it is.

 

How predictable.

At least your consistent, consistently wrong, but consistent.

Thank God, the law doesn't agree with you.

 

That figures!

You two are as wrong as you can be on this issue. Workers, according to the government, have rights, thank God!

 

Dagwood (works in machine shop)
dragonfly (works in machine shop. lives in houston)
Terry_Herrington (works in machine shop, has also been a teacher. lives in houston)
Robert Snow (works in machine shop, has also been a teacher. lives in houston)

Your comments will be disregarded until you fess up to having been banned from this site before.

 

The constitution guarantees no such right to work.

The 'worker' is free to put a price on his labor and to offer that labor for sell to whomever he wishes and where ever he wishes. The employer has the same rights to choose whom he will hire and fire and to determine what he is willing to pay and to determine the terms of what is expected. The worker has a right to expect just compensation for his labors in accordance to that agreed upon when hired by his employer: If a worker is unsatisfied to work under the employment of another...... he is free to go into business for himself.... and will or will not receive compensation from those who are his customers according to his skill and industry and reputation and by reasons of agreement made with each: Just like he has no right to insist that a potential employer MUST hire him....... neither does he have the right to insist that everyone who uses a product or skill that he peddles must be his customer.

Anything other than this is not a function of the federal government ..........or would not be if the states held onto their rights instead of abdicating them. If these rights to regulate were kept close at hand to the powers most affected by them...... that pertaining to the peace and prosperity of the community, then they would be more practical in establishing, enforcing, and amending, according to the changes within the community which reflect corrections and adjustments and balancing of conflicts.

If the states held onto their powers (instead of allowing their elected officials to create federal laws which may be disproportionately reflective of the varying needs of one state to another), the prosperity of some and the contentment of its citizenry compared to another might be sufficient to drive others (states) which were less considerate of certain issues to make similar adjustments in laws or regulations, to improve upon the conditions advantageous for its citizens.

The individual is then served in having the freedom to move and chose the society(state) and the economy which best serves his needs and offers him opportunity and recompense in accordance to his priorities and values. That which serves well the benefits of laws and regulation upon society is then 'hammered out' to a perfection within each state which will eventually move more states to adopt successful models when facing similar problems, leading towards some standardization,

Because the reasoning for regulations and laws is often reflective of an adjustment or correction for specific weaknesses or problems associated within a smaller group of people, these laws are easy to remove when that society reflects the behavioral adjustment and repairs, and 'the problem' is now restrained by the refusal of people to support its continuance if and when regulation is removed.

--------------------
There is no such thing as the right to work or be employed. There is, however, a right to be paid for ones labor...... And there is a right to choose not to work or be forced into labor. There is also the right to accept the consequences of ones choices.... whether one chooses to work or not. Both employee and employer reflect on each other: To the extent where they both agree..... harmony might be expected. Where one has differences with the other..... the employer has the power to chose who will work for him. The employee has the power to choose the tangible and intangible values of his labor and to look for work on his own terms.

Anyone can present themselves as anybody on an Internet message board.... and can be honest and candid in an anonymous boasting of good or bad: likewise, anyone can present themselves as anybody in the pretense of being someone in position worthy of note.... or assume a personality which is not their own... in an attempt to discredit someone existance and real.... with the purpose to deceive and inflame and create controversy. As this braggadocios comment on an Internet message board (not having privilege to review it myself or to review previous post by the 'alleged' poster), does not sound within the revelations expected or respected of a professional person .....even with political frustrations. I'm inclined to say it is more likely a deceptive posting purposely planted to inflame, incite controversy, and perhaps even to stir up legal challenges, whether true or false, and to build a rumor mill which suggests a false validity and establishes a prejudicial judgment.

 

I agree the doctor should have the ability to fire employees for political reasons. However, I would never use this doctor. A doctor with an axe to grind is probably too stressed to be as effective or careful as he should be.

Politically, he's in the right. Ethically, he's not.

 

As soon as they vote you in as sheriff of the BB, then I will be concerned with what you think concerning who I am. Since it is none of your business, I will disregard what you think. Not having to respond to someone as mean and angry as you is only a plus!

 

Well, if you do, I guess I will be an outlaw in his eyes! :smilewinkgrin: