Wiccans fired over Samhain trip to Salem, MA.

[Bluth Corporation]

Are you ignoring this question because it might expose just how self contradictory your statements are?

All your premises are wrong.

I'm not ignoring it--I just didn't see it.

It exposes nothing; you are simply setting me up for a dishonest bait-and-switch. Governments work by forcing people to participate whether they want to or not, so they can't really be compared to organizations (such as business partnerships and ownership agreements) in which everyone involved chose to participate. You're simply being dishonest and disingenuous.

Interesting but irrelevant.
Can the shareholders , by means of majority vote , grant authority over their sacred property rights to an individual ?
Simple question - are you afraid to answer?

I'm not in the habit of answering questions asked in bad faith, not out of curiosity (because you already know the answer) but because the inquirer wishes to pull a dishonest bait-and-switch. To do so only encourages such behavior.

I have absolutely no clue what your answer is. I can't think of anything that you can say that is both consistent with your opinion stated here on this employee's dismissal and consistent with your oft repeated views on property rights.

Then you're not thinking them through, or you're not completely clear on what they are.

EITHER:

I own property all by myself to begin with, and then I agree to let others begin owning shares of it but part of the condition of sale is that they agree to a set of terms I attach to the sale.

OR

Two (or more) people initially buy some property, and they have some agreement among themselves to deal with situations in which they're not all in agreement on what to do, and then later on they let others in provided they also accept the terms of that agreement (or whatever other terms they wish to attach).

[Neesika]

I am really tired of TBC's constant thread hijackings.

[Bluth Corporation]

I am really tired of TBC's constant thread hijackings.

Who's hijacking what?

I posted a comment directly related to the first post in the thread, and discussion followed. Yes, I chose to participate in the side discussion--but so did everyone else. And it's all ultimately related to the subject of the thread, anyway.

[Katganistan]

Well, she didn't violate any company policy, she followed everything correctly, she got fired because her boss was an ass. I hope she wins.

Me too. I hope Bath and Body Works fires the manager as well.

[Sitspot]

Two (or more) people initially buy some property, and they have some agreement among themselves to deal with situations in which they're not all in agreement on what to do, and then later on they let others in provided they also accept the terms of that agreement (or whatever other terms they wish to attach).

This one would seem to be the relevant one in this case. If you had read the thread you would realize that one of the conditions these shareholders vest authority to their store manager under, is that she does not discriminate on basis of sex , politics or religion. One of the other conditions of her vested authority is that she does not use her position to break any laws. They also agreed with their employee that she would be treated in accordance with those policies and laws. This was an agreement that they had entered into voluntarily about conditional use of their property.
Therefore your original statement that

Sounds to me like an employer exercised its sacred natural rights of private property and freedom of association, and no government or court or law has any sort of morally legitimate authority to override this exercise.

Is incorrect.

[Bluth Corporation]

Two (or more) people initially buy some property, and they have some agreement among themselves to deal with situations in which they're not all in agreement on what to do, and then later on they let others in provided they also accept the terms of that agreement (or whatever other terms they wish to attach).

This one would seem to be the relevant one in this case. If you had read the thread you would realize that one of the conditions these shareholders vest authority to their store manager under, is that she does not discriminate on basis of sex , politics or religion. One of the other conditions of her vested authority is that she does not use her position to break any laws. They also agreed with their employee that she would be treated in accordance with those policies and laws. This was an agreement that they had entered into voluntarily about conditional use of their property.

Were that true you'd be right, but I don't see that being mentioned anywhere.

Furthermore, the fired employee still wouldn't have any authority to make a court case. The shareholders can deal with the manager however they wish, and they can choose to reinstate the employee if they wish--but it's still not a matter for the courts, absent a conflict between the shareholders themselves over the terms of their agreement.

[Katganistan]

Time must move slower in Boston. :-P

He couldn't change his sig because he was busy pahking his cah.

NEAR Hahvahd Yahd.

(Yes, she can learn!)

[Muravyets]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

Flamebait.^^ An unprovoked packet of insults like this seems to have no purpose but to provoke others into attacking your beliefs on similar grounds of being made up. This impression is strengthened by the fact that you make no reference at all to the actual topic of the thread. You seem to have only come in to troll non-Christians.

[Sitspot]

Two (or more) people initially buy some property, and they have some agreement among themselves to deal with situations in which they're not all in agreement on what to do, and then later on they let others in provided they also accept the terms of that agreement (or whatever other terms they wish to attach).

This one would seem to be the relevant one in this case. If you had read the thread you would realize that one of the conditions these shareholders vest authority to their store manager under, is that she does not discriminate on basis of sex , politics or religion. One of the other conditions of her vested authority is that she does not use her position to break any laws. They also agreed with their employee that she would be treated in accordance with those policies and laws. This was an agreement that they had entered into voluntarily about conditional use of their property.

Were that true you'd be right, but I don't see that being mentioned anywhere.

Furthermore, the fired employee still wouldn't have any authority to make a court case. The shareholders can deal with the manager however they wish, and they can choose to reinstate the employee if they wish--but it's still not a matter for the courts, absent a conflict between the shareholders themselves over the terms of their agreement.

The shareholders have a mutual agreement to subject their corporation to process of law - that is their right as mutual property owners and all the deeds of association they signed agreed to this. They have every right to such a mutual agreement over their own property.
As usual you are incorrect

[Katganistan]

Sounds to me like an employer exercised its sacred natural rights of private property and freedom of association, and no government or court or law has any sort of morally legitimate authority to override this exercise.

Yes, yes, but in the REAL world, governments, courts, and laws DO have the legitimate authority, given to them by the people who comprise them, create them, and elect them, to keep business from fucking people over for no good reason.

[Sitspot]

Were that true you'd be right, but I don't see that being mentioned anywhere.
.

“We are an equal opportunity employer and do not discriminate against race, color, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, sexual orientation or marital status,” says Robin Hoffman, specialist, external communications for Limited Brands. “Additionally, we do not comment on pending litigation.”
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/art ... /75/37.php

[Thuristian]

I hope she wins too, her boss is a douche, *nods*

Pretty much.

I'd react the same way over my boss hating Asatru, too.

[Tekania]

Sounds to me like an employer exercised its sacred natural rights of private property and freedom of association, and no government or court or law has any sort of morally legitimate authority to override this exercise.

1. Authorize leave
2. Revoke Authorization of Leave ex post facto
3. Terminate

If you consider this moral... You need to be thrown in prison for the rest of your natural existence... Because you are a danger to everyone else...

[Maurepas]

Sounds to me like an employer exercised its sacred natural rights of private property and freedom of association, and no government or court or law has any sort of morally legitimate authority to override this exercise.

1. Authorize leave
2. Revoke Authorization of Leave ex post facto
3. Terminate

If you consider this moral... You need to be thrown in prison for the rest of your natural existence... Because you are a danger to everyone else...

Yeah, but, would be a sacred natural legitimate property owner right of association prison?

[Tekania]

Two (or more) people initially buy some property, and they have some agreement among themselves to deal with situations in which they're not all in agreement on what to do, and then later on they let others in provided they also accept the terms of that agreement (or whatever other terms they wish to attach).

This one would seem to be the relevant one in this case. If you had read the thread you would realize that one of the conditions these shareholders vest authority to their store manager under, is that she does not discriminate on basis of sex , politics or religion. One of the other conditions of her vested authority is that she does not use her position to break any laws. They also agreed with their employee that she would be treated in accordance with those policies and laws. This was an agreement that they had entered into voluntarily about conditional use of their property.

Were that true you'd be right, but I don't see that being mentioned anywhere.

Furthermore, the fired employee still wouldn't have any authority to make a court case. The shareholders can deal with the manager however they wish, and they can choose to reinstate the employee if they wish--but it's still not a matter for the courts, absent a conflict between the shareholders themselves over the terms of their agreement.

Don't think you quite grasp the concept of corporate law....

1. A corporate officer's (say a manager) actions are representative of the corporation to which he/she works for while operating under the said title, regardless if the actions were officially approved by the corporation... As such, the corporation is liable for the actions of the officer
2. The officer can be held liable by the corporation for violating conditions, in the before mentioned case, when said officer takes actions on behalf of the corporation to which the corporation did not authorize...

Therefore, if a manager takes it upon themselves to terminate an employee, and said termination was a wrongful termination; even if the termination was not authorized by the corporation, said corporation is liable for the effects of the termination.... The corporation, however, can also take their own case, and hold the manager liable for those actions causing damage to the corporation...

If this had happened in my company... I personally would have settled with the former-employee out of court, demoted the district-manager, and hired the former-salesmanager as the new district-manager (and direct superior of the one demoted)....

[Thuristian]

Justifying the fact that you fired a normal, average, every-day Wiccan because she is a Devil-worshipper is like justifying firing a normal, average, every-day Muslim because he is a terrorist. That is discrimination, and there is INDEED laws in America that justify the woman suing for discrimination. Otherwise she would not be able to.

I do not know the full education level of the manager, but I can very well assume that the manager probably should have become more of an accepting person BEFORE she became a manager. Part of becoming a manager (a good manager, anyway) is learning not to be so, "FUUUUCCKKKKK YOOOOOUUU" and being more, "Okay, I don't like you, but you're working for me, and you're not doing anything wrong, so as long as we keep this at a professional level, I can deal with this, regardless of my personal views about your race, religion, etc."

It's called growing the fuck up.

[Bunyippie]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

[Bunyippie]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

adam, eve and cain, since able was dead

[Maurepas]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

Lilithe maybe? Adam's first wife?

[Bunyippie]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

Lilithe maybe? Adam's first wife?

well hard to know, because if you read, Cain says if he goes out amongst the others, they will kill him. If it was only him, Adam and Eve, who are the others?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

Lilithe maybe? Adam's first wife?

well hard to know, because if you read, Cain says if he goes out amongst the others, they will kill him. If it was only him, Adam and Eve, who are the others?

The Bible should be made into a porno.

[Maurepas]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

Lilithe maybe? Adam's first wife?

well hard to know, because if you read, Cain says if he goes out amongst the others, they will kill him. If it was only him, Adam and Eve, who are the others?

Ive often wondered that myself, Cain goes out on his own, and randomly founds a city of people who were hitherto nonexistant,

[Grave_n_idle]

Because there's any thought behind Wicca at all, rather than a mush-up of eclectic new-age stuff with faux-ancient religion.

Rather than, y'know, a real, ancient religion that's been going strong for 2000 years, somehow managed to win over the original Celtic pagans, and has a long and venerable scholastic tradition rather than the odd viewpoints of an eccentric English nudist. Suffice to say that most Wiccans I've come across at universities seem to be moderately weird goth chickies.

Dearie me, seems old Ratzinger was right about the poverty of relativism…

yes, because you are totally an expert on religion. I mean, who wouldn't want to perform a ritual of cannibalizing a long dead jewish zombie carpenter? Or even better,that we are all descended from incest from three people.

Adam, Eve and... Steve was included afterall?

Lilithe maybe? Adam's first wife?

well hard to know, because if you read, Cain says if he goes out amongst the others, they will kill him. If it was only him, Adam and Eve, who are the others?

Ive often wondered that myself, Cain goes out on his own, and randomly founds a city of people who were hitherto nonexistant,

I believe the usual argument is that there are other sons and daughters than just those specifically listed.

Yeah, it's a bit of a jury-rig, patching a logical hole.

[Bluth Corporation]

Two (or more) people initially buy some property, and they have some agreement among themselves to deal with situations in which they're not all in agreement on what to do, and then later on they let others in provided they also accept the terms of that agreement (or whatever other terms they wish to attach).

This one would seem to be the relevant one in this case. If you had read the thread you would realize that one of the conditions these shareholders vest authority to their store manager under, is that she does not discriminate on basis of sex , politics or religion. One of the other conditions of her vested authority is that she does not use her position to break any laws. They also agreed with their employee that she would be treated in accordance with those policies and laws. This was an agreement that they had entered into voluntarily about conditional use of their property.

Were that true you'd be right, but I don't see that being mentioned anywhere.

Furthermore, the fired employee still wouldn't have any authority to make a court case. The shareholders can deal with the manager however they wish, and they can choose to reinstate the employee if they wish--but it's still not a matter for the courts, absent a conflict between the shareholders themselves over the terms of their agreement.

Don't think you quite grasp the concept of corporate law....

No, you simply don't grasp the entirety of my argument.

I do not promote ideas in an intellectual vacuum, but rather in the context of all the other ideas I promote.

I don't care what "wrongful termination" law says, because such law is inherently illegitimate. I was talking about an agent of the shareholders violating an internal policy of the shareholders.