DanteGabriel Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So here's a funny story... The workers at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga recently had a vote to see if they wanted to unionize and join the United Auto Workers. Volkswagen is actually in favor of their workers unionizing, because they think it fits their best practices and makes their business better. What does Volkswagen get out of the vote? It's hoping to establish a German-style management-labor "works council," which by US law requires the workers to be represented by a union. When Bernd Osterloh, a member of the company's supervisory board, came to Tennessee in November to tamp down the political uproar, he explained to the Associated Press that "Volkswagen considers its corporate culture of works councils a competitive advantage." Tennessee Republicans, including the governor, US Senators, and state legislators, are threatening to penalize Volkswagen by withdrawing tax incentives if they allow unionization at the plant. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-tennessee-union-drive-20140212,0,1883327.story#ixzz2tDWLt1rp I guess for the GOP, it really isn't even about the "job creators" themselves, but about punishing organized labor. Because their chief economic priority -- which they pursue by killing unions, weakening public education, fighting minimum wage increases, and trying to keep health care tied to employment -- is a large, cheap captive labor class that has no means to rise in economic position. The areas of the country where the Republicans' power is strongest are the poorest, least-educated, and economic mobility is weakest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 But DG, I thought they were all about allowing businesses to operate as they think best! Well, I never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 But DG, I thought they were all about allowing businesses to operate as they think best! Well, I never. I guess them Heroic Job Creators are less heroic when they truck with Commies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I wish the GOP would figure out if they like or dislike what Germany is doing. One day they are praising them for being the savior of Europe, the next they are socialists out to conquer the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So steamed about this: The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings. Slate does a more in-depth analysis, basically revealing that: When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations—movie theaters, restaurants—can turn away gay couples at the door. And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government. I'd recommend a boycott against Kansas, but I think that life has already punished that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So steamed about this: The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings. Slate does a more in-depth analysis, basically revealing that: I'd recommend a boycott against Kansas, but I think that life has already punished that state. If this actually becomes legal I will laugh at each one of the businesses that goes under as a result of the inevitable boycotts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 TN, given that other laws legalizing discrimination against gays were overturned by the SCOTUS, even in the 90s, I don't think this one has a chance of being held up as constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 TN, given that other laws legalizing discrimination against gays were overturned by the SCOTUS, even in the 90s, I don't think this one has a chance of being held up as constitutional. Of course it doesn't. You could easily replace the word "gay" with "black", and use the same 19th century logic to make it part of "religious freedom". Doesn't mean it's constitutional. But it'll take time to get these horrible laws thrown out, and until then, DON'T GO TO KANSAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I remember an interview where the president of Bayern Munich said that they didn't want to raise ticket prices because while it would get them a couple million extra euros, it would make the lives of fans more difficult. I can't imagine Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones saying that with a straight face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Of course it doesn't. You could easily replace the word "gay" with "black", and use the same 19th century logic to make it part of "religious freedom". Doesn't mean it's constitutional. But it'll take time to get these horrible laws thrown out, and until then, DON'T GO TO KANSAS. Word. I wouldn't go there if I had a pair of ruby slippers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 So steamed about this: The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings. Slate does a more in-depth analysis, basically revealing that: I'd recommend a boycott against Kansas, but I think that life has already punished that state. Legality aside, everyone has a right to free association. That includes businesses, churches, or individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals. Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Government we employees refusing to provide government services to someone in need isn't just "hurt feelings". Anti gay people that try to cloak it in personal freedom are so transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Legality aside, everyone has a right to free association. That includes businesses, churches, or individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals. Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" Do businesses have the right to not associate with Blacks and Jews too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm not sure how businesses have any rights 'legalities aside', businesses have the rights the law gives them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Legality aside, everyone has a right to free association. That includes businesses, churches, or individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals. Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" Legality aside, everyone has the right to murder someone else too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Legality aside, everyone has a right to free association. That includes businesses, churches, or individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals. Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" While we can debate the stupidity of "everyone has the right to free association" later, some businesses and agencies should absolutely be forbidden from discriminating against people for any reasons. Obvious examples include hospitals and police departments. So while I'm sure you're going to rage about how the mean liberal agenda is forcing people to work with people they don't like, remember that, for practical purposes, you could be denying people access to essential services. So fuck you and your equivocation about how "hurt feelings" do not equal oppression. Allowing police officers to refuse to help someone because they're gay is not "hurt feelings." If you're going to be a government (or a hospital) you damn well better not be able to deny services to someone because of your religious bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" You think being denied affordable housing because the landlord opposes same-sex couples cohabitating is an issue of "hurt feelings"? You think hospitals that deny spouses visitation rights or next-of-kin privileges in medical consultations are issues of "hurt feelings"? You think beind denied pensions and benefits for widows and widowers is an issue of "hurt feelings"? Really? Did you really think this through at all? Here's one example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/alabama-gay-marriage_n_4781328.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 "Hurt feelings" = stuff that doesn't affect me, so why care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Legality aside, everyone has a right to free association. That includes businesses, churches, or individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals. Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" How very dismissive, disdainful, and frankly callous that comment is. How about we pass a law that enables businesses and government to ignore the needs of people who make indifferent, jackass statements. Your feelings hurt yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Legality aside, everyone has a right to free association. That includes businesses, churches, or individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals. Hurt feelings do not equal "oppression" The irony here being the core justification of this unconstitutional and frankly criminal abuse is essentially that for [anti-gay] "Christians," it would hurt their feelings to be near teh gay. Daww, they're being PERSECUTED by being forced to treat American citizens like human beings! Wahhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.