Well ladies, apparently, according to a judge in the great state of Iowa, if you are too pretty, you could be fired! Beware when you go to work.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/i … esistible/
This bothers me a lot. I remember being send home to change my clothes in middle school because apparently my perfectly normal shorts were just to appealing and the poor boys just couldn't concentrate on their studies. This just makes me sick. Even as a child I knew this was wrong, it was those boys responsibility to control themselves, same as this dentist, I am disgusted that any court would rule this way, at least with the facts we have seen.
You know, there was a time when I was young when all you had to do was look pretty to get the job. I got a lot of jobs that way, you know, with the looks and the gift of the gab. The problem was keeping the job if the boss wanted to do a bit more with you than you'd bargained for, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. And who can blame them if you've led them up the garden path in the first place. Anyway, it doesn't work at all these days. The women's libbers spoiled all that if you ask me. And these days it's more likely to be a woman interviewing you than a man, so you haven't got a chance unless she's the other way, but even then that's not the answer. Anyway, I'm all for progress, so change is a good thing really. I'm just glad I don't have to go for interviews anymore.
I live in a state where they can fire you for whatever they want so this is nothing new. I was fired once for not fitting in with the 50 something year olds who hired me.
Iowa is a "right to work" state. I love names. It's really "right to fire". Employers don't need a reason to fire you. Since the judges ruled she wasn't fired because she was a woman, but because the dentist's loins were aflame, she's outta there. I mean, if the Dentist was gay, it could just as easily been a man who lost his job.
Even though Iowa legalized gay marriages, this story is shameful.
You have got to be kidding me. I truly love some of the odd ball articles you come across. This is a utterly ridiculous ruling rendered by the Iowa Supreme court- although after reading this I don't believe it will be their last. I bet they still think the world is flat and tell their children that storks deliver babies.
Even from a libertarian POV, there is something wrong.
You don't have to advocate the government do something about this in order to say the action should not have been done. Both propositions are compatible.
It's similar to libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act in the United States. Libertarians do not, in any way, claim that being racist is a good thing, and they would advise businesses to be fair. However, like Rand Paul said in the Rachel Maddow interview, it's not the government's role to interfere in the decisions of private individuals.
I think it would be controversial if someone were fired for being black, and you could find it controversial also without advocating government action.
I accept that assertion on principle. I don't think there's enough information in this case to argue that it should or should not have happened. The relationship may have not been appropriate in a professional environment. I just think there are more pressing issues at the moment.
Read more on this case on MSNBC. I don't agree with Mrs. Nelson's lawsuit in the first place. I don't think she was fired because she was a woman (his staff is all female). It is simply suspicion and jealousy on the wife's part. Here's an example. My bosses wife is "very strict" about who he hires for a secretary. Usually someone who he wouldn't be attracted to. This is despite the fact that he's never cheated. I place the blame on the wife's jealousy and and Iowa's worker rights laws.
I agree with innersmiff who seems to be trying to find a middle ground here but I what Justin Muir posted is possibly correct but who the heck wants this kind of "reality-T.V. mentality" to be taking up the time of those legislating at a supreme court level? I'm quite sure the citizens of Iowa would rather have them reviewing more important issues.--Perhaps the "at will employment policies" within their state would be a suit with more meat on its bones then this farce.
by Flightkeeper6 years ago
Juan Williams who forks for NPR as a political analyst was fired for expressing a fear on the Bill O'Reilly show. "Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in...
by Sooner284 years ago
The anti-equality side is arguing against marriage equality by claiming (1) homosexuals can't procreation (2) kids with homosexual parents turn out badly.(1) ProcreationThis is technically true. A homosexual...
by masculine6 years ago
Am i being too obsessed and hopeless about myself, due to my excess body hair, which i see as a disability in matters related to relationships and hampering of self image?I feel "abnormal" and try to shun the...
by DTR00056 years ago
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/t … sm-america
by My Esoteric3 years ago
When the Robert's Court, while upholding the most important part of Obamacare, struck down the the penalty to any State not buying into the expanded Medicaid program, they condemned millions of somewhat poor Americans...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.