Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Asher]

Dismissing my links because they don't support your opinion is not arguing Asher.

I'm dissmissing your links because they're not relevant. My opinion is gay people tend to be more sexually promiscuous, and sexually promiscuous people are more likely to get STDs.

But not all gay people are sexually promiscuous.
But all smokers are smokers.

It is not fair to discriminate on sexuality because the stereotype is they are sexually promiscuous. This is fundamentally different than discriminating against smokers -- 100% of smokers smoke, you know. That's not a stereotype.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
One question. Do you think it would be fair to fire sexually promiscuous men?

Absolutely, it would only be fair given that the idea is to have low-health-risk employees.

[Japher]

My opinion is gay people tend to be more sexually promiscuous, and sexually promiscuous people are more likely to get STDs.

your point keeps changing... I thought it was about company costs? now it's about promiscous people?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
your point keeps changing... I thought it was about company costs? now it's about promiscous people?

It was a supporting point.

My point was the idea is to lower company costs by getting rid of employees who engage in high-risk activities.

Smoking and promiscuous sex fall under this category.

Gay people do not. Smoking and promiscuous sex is 100% risky behavior, while not all gay people engage in risky behavior.

That is the difference. That is my point.

[rah]

I would love to see the guidelines and testing for promiscouity. It would probably be open hunting season on gays under the guise of lowering company costs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
I would love to see the guidelines and testing for promiscouity. It would probably be open hunting season on gays under the guise of lowering company costs.

Maybe, it'll be interesting if somebody tried.

I know if they fired me for that reason, I'd be laughing all the way to the bank and be a PR nightmare for them.

[Japher]

So how was my link pointless?

One shows that the cost for domestic partnerships would increase company health care costs by 17.1%. You dismiss it because they are a religious advocacy group, and, in your opinion, has to small of a group, and is only California... blah! How does that dismiss their findings?

I also post links that say gay men are becoming more and more permiscous. Supporting that gay men are more likely to contract stds... Which is something every health professional agrees on. And you just say that doesn't support the incured costs!

They aren't pointless... they just don't support what you want to see.

[Japher]

I think most companies curb these costs by having set primiums and deductables anyway. AS well as a set number of sick days or performance reviews.

I really don't see how smoking or being gay would cost a company more. It will, in the end, cost the individual more, as well as our national health care system generally footing the bill for most of the problems with such people, as it occurs later in their lives.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
So how was my link pointless?

One shows that the cost for domestic partnerships would increase company health care costs by 17.1%. You dismiss it because they are a religious advocacy group, and, in your opinion, has to small of a group, and is only California... blah! How does that dismiss their findings?

That first link wasn't pointless, the rest were.

The first link was a shady study that lacked detail from a "small group" somewhere in California, in an article from a religious "family" and "faith" advocacy group. Forgive me for gagging on its bias and uselessness.

The other links are also irrelevant -- it doesn't matter if a study from 1998 centered in the London area says sexual promiscuoty is increasing there, if it's not reflected in total costs.

Companies that have done this switch in documented cases do not have a sizable increase.

There is lots of FUD and paranoia and scare-tactics out there about homosexuality, which is why posting a barrage of links from regional studies from 7 years ago, or religious advcacy groups is considered "useless" in a debate to corporate health insurance cost.

[Japher]

Similarlly I doubt someone as huge as P&G would perform a study showing that domestic partnerships would cost them too much to do. Since gay and lesbian advocacy groups would protest them.

Really, what it says is that for P&G to not give gays and lesbians medicals coverage for their SOs would cost them more.

[rah]

Originally posted by Asher

It was a supporting point.
My point was the idea is to lower company costs by getting rid of employees who engage in high-risk activities.

So it's ok to fire all fat people. (choose to eat)
Child bearing women (choose to have children)
Employees that drive to work (choose a riskier way to work vs walking or taking the train)
Anyone that ever drinks. (choose to drink)
Anyone that participates in sports for fun (choose to maybe have an injury on the ski slopes or shooting hoops)
Anyone who travels to different countries.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
So it's ok to fire all fat people. (choose to eat)
Child bearing women (choose to have children)
Employees that drive to work (choose a riskier way to work vs walking or taking the train)
Anyone that ever drinks. (choose to drink)
Anyone that participates in sports for fun (choose to maybe have an injury on the ski slopes or shooting hoops)
Anyone who travels to different countries.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

Simple: It's a private company -- wherever they choose to in an at-will state.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You know, most companies only hire people if they have certain qualifications, and if they aren't capable of doing the job, they get fired!!!

Not all discrimination is created equal. Discrimination = making a choice.

What does me smoking have to do with whether i can do my job?

[Japher]

so private companies can violate civil rights laws?

I don't think so. discrimination is not allowed

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
so private companies can violate civil rights laws?

I don't think so. discrimination is not allowed

If discrimination was not allowed, Hooters would be able to hire fat male waitresses, the DMV would be able to hire driving instructors who are deaf-blind-mutes, and NASA could hire high school drop-outs to design the next Shuttle.

And yes, apparently they can -- just like how the Boy Scouts won their case to keep those sissy homos out of the Boy Scouts. And that's even easier to get into than businesses.