Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: Canadians begin to get it...
As the newly titled "Whining Electoral Loser" I could observe that my
comment was not bemoaning anything. In many respects I believe the
election result will bring refreshing change.
One of those changes (at the behest of unions) will add risk to
employers for no economic benefit, in order to gain the unions a few
high-profile short term wins, and I observed that employees (the union
members) will be the long term losers. Pretty simple economics really.
I could whine that I fail to understand how this supports SHs argument.
As I whined in an earlier post - it is fiddling at the margins.
Invariably any bit of legislation to 'improve' the situation has
unintended negative side effects.
Whining Peter
Malcolm Weir wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spanked Hubby
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:56 PM
>>
>
>
>> The Australian commentator was just a whining electoral
>> loser! From what I know of Australia they are doing just
>> fine there (other than fighting the USA caused global warming, eh).
>>
>
> Oh, well, that's fine then.
>
> Of course, it does _rather_ weaken your argument to dismiss negative data as
> just coming from "whining electoral losers".
>
> I mean, I could just dismiss everything you say as just coming from someone
> with a monstrous inferiority complex, so we can ignore what you write!
>
>
>> Your jury award bogeyman has been exposed as that by other of
>> your countrymen!
>>
>
> Err, that would include Cadenas, right? The guy whose grasp of dictionaries
> leaves a lot to be desired? The guy who thinks discretion in hiring
> decisions aggravates the problem?
>
> You seem to be having grave difficulty with the concept of opinions being
> different from facts...
>
>
>> The difference between the Canadian and USA
>> jury awards is not so huge as to be an absolute barrier.
>>
>
> Ah, you've snucked an "absolute" in. So you're admitting that it's a
> barrier. You're beginning to understand.
>
>
>> Discrimination in employment on the basis of gender and race
>> and religion have survived your beloved First Ammendment - wonder why?
>>
>
> Because smarter people than you (not a short list) have realized that gender
> and race are properties of being, not properties of doing.
>
> And I'd be fine with a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
> sexual orientation or identity. But (as the US Supreme Court cite I
> provided you) states, that's not the position now, and changing it may have
> unintended and unfortunate additional consequences.
>
> But "being arrested" is a property of doing.
>
>
>> But, yeah, one thing you are right about is that you can't
>> just copy something from another jurisdiction!
>>
>
> Great, so you can now shut up with your "here's how BC does it" thing, and
> get back to the problem of a solution _for the USA_.
>
>
>> S H
>>
>
> Malc.
>
>
>
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home