H8tank Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 It's been less than a week since New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army.Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,' " he told the Senate last Thursday. But that's exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety. http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010881 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickspicks Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 This truly boggles the mind. I remember my great-grandparents wanting so badly to speak english correctly. This country is definetly headed for the crapper...and the attorneys are forcing it down our throats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 boo frickin hoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickspicks Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 boo frickin hoo It's amazing how some have not a clue. I now understand the immature comment above...numb-nuts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 its over......the only question is will i be speaking mandarin or espanol in 10ys. In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It's amazing how some have not a clue. I now understand the immature comment above...numb-nuts! Well, if it truly is a nuance of the Civil Rights Act aren't the courts supposed to play a matter in determining what is or isn't a legal violation? You know, being consistent with the constitution and all, as defined by our forefathers? Didn't they write stuff up this way so Congressional politicians don't hold all the power? Isn't that what made the country we came from go down the crapper? I'd also argue that spendings billions of dollars a year on Iraqi welfare is more detrimental to our country than letting the courts decide if employee's should be required to speak English, but that is just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It's amazing how some have not a clue. I now understand the immature comment above...numb-nuts! I was being quite mature, as opposed to you, Mr. Poopypants. If you don't want an employee who doesn't speak English, don't hire one. If you want to force your employees to learn to speak English, don't take federal money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I said this in H8's last masturbatory thread. Legislation to protect people from lawsuits is dumb. Let the courts decide what a valid lawsuit is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I was being quite mature, as opposed to you, Mr. Poopypants. If you don't want an employee who doesn't speak English, don't hire one. If you want to force your employees to learn to speak English, don't take federal money. then you get sued for discrimination. I said this in H8's last masturbatory thread. Legislation to protect people from lawsuits is dumb. Let the courts decide what a valid lawsuit is. agree, but we also need a loser pays system for frivolous suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 agree, but we also need a loser pays system for frivolous suits. Not every time someone loses is their suit frivolous. I'm not sure one should only be allowed access to the judicial system if they can afford to pay for both sets of lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Not every time someone loses is their suit frivolous. I'm not sure one should only be allowed access to the judicial system if they can afford to pay for both sets of lawyers. Nevertheless, a winner in court should not have to face bankruptcy through legal bills. I like loser pays on the whole - then you have to have a sure case to take it to court. There probably should be provision for both loser pays and a split, where both sides pay their own costs. Worth discussing, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Nevertheless, a winner in court should not have to face bankruptcy through legal bills. I like loser pays on the whole - then you have to have a sure case to take it to court. There probably should be provision for both loser pays and a split, where both sides pay their own costs. Worth discussing, anyway. OJ wishes. State of California probably would have had to have given him back so much money he wouldn't have needed to rob those dudes in Vegas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'canes2004 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 OJ wishes. State of California probably would have had to have given him back so much money he wouldn't have needed to rob those dudes in Vegas. Juice was just gettin' his stuff back yo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 then you get sued for discrimination. Prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted November 20, 2007 Author Share Posted November 20, 2007 Let the courts decide what a valid lawsuit is. Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers Are you medically considered tarded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 If the article is accurate can I assume that Pelosi actively took away power from Congress and left it to the courts who would have ultimately decided the fate anyways? Isn't that streamlining the process and saving taxpayers money so we can send it to an US supported Iraqi terrorist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 If the article is accurate can I assume that Pelosi actively took away power from Congress and left it to the courts who would have ultimately decided the fate anyways? Isn't that streamlining the process and saving taxpayers money so we can send it to an US supported Iraqi terrorist? Lets say we DIDN'T fightback against our enemies............wonder how different it would be.........some will say we'd be better off.....i think those bloodthisty Radicals would be way ahead and the job of protecting Everyones Freedom would be twice as hard............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Isn't that what made the country we came from go down the crapper? No. Spineless , pc, knob slobberin, defeatists like yourself are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Prove it. google discrimination lawsuits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ]Lets say we DIDN'T fightback against our enemies............ Why do we have to hypothesize we didn't? No. Spineless , pc, knob slobberin, defeatists like yourself are. Back to the short bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Why do we have to hypothesize we didn't? Back to the short bus. No comprende, Seniorita wack. Edited November 20, 2007 by Front Row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant" to job performance or safety. It doesnt seem to me like these employees were fired for being unable to speak English but because they were speaking Spanish amongst themselves after being told not to. That does seem a little extreem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Anyone ever wanted to take that bell and shove it up the ass of the Salvation Army ringer? Or is it just me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 google discrimination lawsuits how can you interview someone if you cant understand them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Anyone ever wanted to take that bell and shove it up the ass of the Salvation Army ringer? Or is it just me? well if you go hunting or bell ringers you wont find any at Target Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.