It’s good to know that, when the occasional pro-SSM person like Adam Smith acts like a douche, you’ll be along pretty quickly to balance things out again.
There’s no “logical and happy median” between more unjust and less unjust.
Sure sounded to me like you felt the need to tell me that what I thought was brilliant comedy really wasn’t brilliant by explaining things to me as if I were a child. But, whatever.
Yes, let’s call marriage something else and pretend it’s not the same thing, but is at the same time!
A shitstain by any other name, such as magellan01, would smell as repugnant.
Sorry, I have to argue with b84 by proxy since he has me on his childish “ignore” list.
No patronizing aimed at you. Seriously.
Oh, ok. Feel free to argue with him via me anytime. I’m glad to be of service.
You’re welcome.
I suppose that it is at least a consistent mistake.
I would guess it’s because they reason that if you have a legal right to do something, it follows that other people cannot penalize you for exercising your rights. When you think about it carefully, this doesn’t make any sense but a lot of people probably don’t think about it very carefully.
Of course it’s possible (but unlikely) that Arizona forbids employers from discharging employees for off-duty political activities. New York has such a law, but even New York’s law is probably not broad enough to cover Adam Smith.
Still, one should not assume that Smith’s main employer had an unfettered right to discharge him over this. Hopefully they called their attorneys first.
Also, he was apparently also an adjunct professor at ASU. Since ASU is a public institution, I would hope they checked their first-amendment obligations very carefully before cutting him loose.
If he’s an adjunct, there’s a good chance that there was no “cutting him loose.”
An adjunct is an instructor who is not on the tenure track, and often has no security of employment. In many systems, adjunct are hired on a per-semester, contract basis, and having a contract for one semester does not guarantee you work for the following semester.
Note the language in the statement by the University of Arizona, linked earlier by Morgenstern:
They’re not saying they have fired him, or cut him loose, or let him go. They’re saying that he had a one-semester contract for the Spring, and that he currently has no position with the university.
In some systems, adjuncts do have certain rights. Here in California, in the state university system, adjuncts can, by dint of seniority and a certain number of successive semesters of employment, gain contract rights that have been negotiated by the California Faculty Association. Adjuncts who reach this stage are given contracts, usually (i believe) for two years, and are guaranteed a certain number of classes each semester.
If Adam Smith had been in California, and was an adjunct with contract rights, he probably would not have lost his job. But if he was just a regular adjunct, contracted on a semester-by-semester basis, there would be no job for him to lose, because the university would not be obliged to hire him this semester just because he happened to have a contract last semester.
That may be so, but if the university was re-hiring him year after year, and then stopped doing so for an improper reason, then he may very well have a good cause of action.
Just because he has no guarantee of continuing employment doesn’t mean he can be fired for an illegal reason.
For example, suppose that ASU gets a new president who hates Hispanic people and announces that all Hispanic adjunct faculty can expect no further appointments. Of course there would be a big lawsuit against ASU for race discrimination and the Hispanic adjuncts would seek lost wages as part of their damages. If ASU’s attorneys showed up and argued that the plaintiffs had no guarantee of continuing employment and that therefore they have no claim for lost wages, they would get laughed out of court.
Do you need to have explained to you the difference between, “We’re not going to hire this particular guy again because he acts like a douchebag” and “We’re not going to hire these people because of their skin color”?
We’d have to start by explaining the difference between the University of Arizona and Arizona State University.
I don’t know, is being a douchebag genetic?
Let’s call the spouse of a husband a ____________.
And you might have noticed that homosexuals and straights are different, by proof of the different words we use to describe them. What do you have against humans using different words to refer to different things? That’s very anti-human development of you.
Then you wouldn’t have a problem with every marriage, hetero or homosexual, from now on and retroactively described and stated only as a “civil union” in the United States, and “marriage,” “husband,” “wife,” etc. strictly religious or cultural statuses/connotations, not recognized under federal or state laws as nothing more than a self ascribed label.
Sure I wood. Marriage has been and is a valuable institution in our society. It would be dumb to try to subvert that.
Oh, of course, silly me.
Yes, assuming for the sake of argument that the douchebaggery in question is protected under some law or constitutional provision. Please explain the difference to me.
Or are you conceding that “no guarantee of future employment” is not a defense to a claim of unlawful termination?
Put it this way, any corporation can fire your ass, so long as its not for discriminatory reasons. Being a “douchebag” is a perfectly acceptable reason to get shit-canned, since it’s something you can…
Oh, I forgot, you can’t hear me because you’re shutting your eyes. Nzinga, would you mind?..