this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
229 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4434 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Roman Catholic school in a case involving employment discrimination allegations from an employee who was terminated after she became pregnant out of wedlock.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I respect the voicing an opinion that goes against the grain, but...

  1. That school gets federal funds. We pay for these idiots to teach nonsense.

  2. Contracts shouldn't be able to violate basic freedoms. Don't like it, work elsewhere, right?

Check the contract/waiver for your cell phone, mortgage, bank, school, employment, etc. Odds are there's an arbitration mandate. Guess who arbitration sides with 95+% of the time. The guys who pay them.

Contracts state ridiculously evil shit. There are too many contracts to read. Organizations push for too much. We should not be able to sign away fundamental rights.

Try getting a job, cell phone, apartment, etc., without signing away basic rights. It's only getting harder.

Edit: Stupid phone typos

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You spelled contract wrong four times in that comment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ugh. For some reason this phone just does not like that word.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Contracts shouldn’t be able to violate basic freedoms

Having any specific job isn't a basic freedom. You aren't entitled to a paycheck from anyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying having a job is a freedom. What happens when every job includes a clause that says "you can't sue us, no matter what." Because most of the contracts that you sign already say that. Every Cellular service does. Most factories do. I work in software and pretty much every gig I've ever worked included something along those lines.

It's not always enforcable, but this kind of thing inches us closer.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like a good reason to not take those contracts. If enough people find the terms to be bad and refuse them, companies ultimately have to change the terms if they want employees.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree in theory. Except most people don't care, or don't know to look for those things. Pretty soon it's all you run into. Gamer? Micro transactions are in basically everything now. Farmer? Check out what John Deer does. Need healthcare, good luck. Military? No thanks. Software? What all of the big players has trickled down. Factory work? That language has already been there a long time, often at the state level. Look at the maximum you can get for a lost arm in Alabama. Hint: it's less than $50k Etc. Etc.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the average person doesn't care, then there's nothing wrong with the average person getting whacked with the consequences of their actions. I, for one, would definitely not take a job specifically on the terms of not having premarital sex if I intended to have premarital sex.

And as for state-level law making these terms guaranteed, it certainly seems like a damn good argument for not fucking regulating everything into the ground.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So you've read every EULA you've ever signed (that thing you agree to on every site, ever piece of software, etc.)? It would take decades to read them all. It's too much. Basic protections and regulations keep us alive.

You benefit from those annoying regulations every time you eat from a restaurant or grocery store. Do you go inspect the back room personally? Prior to the FDA there was rotten meat, and literal poison. You just don't have time to inspect everything single thing you do. Regulations aren't fun, but they keep us alive. I would wager anything that you've unknowingly agreed to some awful terms for many things. You just haven't been burned yet.