The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2013, 12:00 PM   #51
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Fist of all I didn't start that thread, all I said was "if you are going to talk about gun violence, you must be willing to discuss "the elephant in the room" that everyone chooses to ignore. No one wants to talk about those facts because it's politically incorrect. I also stated it should be up to the blacks to take steps to solve that problem on their own in the communities where the violence is a way of life. The same communities that you wouldn't take your family on a drive through. You choose to ignore the elephant and bush it off as a socioeconomic problem.

Every citizen has rights and whether you agree or not that includes a "white supremist" or a "black gang-banger". Go back and look at the "Ruby Ridge" fiasco when the rights of a so-called "white supremist" were trampled on by the U.S. government. They killed his wife, 14-year-old son and even his dog all because he sawed off the barrel of a 12-gauge shotgun and sold it to an undercover FBI agent.

.
Just one more unrefutable post. Yet the FLL will try..

Wanna bet they think your an angry old white guy, living with a bunch of other of the same persuasion.

The FLL will be back with the name calling any second now.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 12:35 PM   #52
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,653

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
BTW I agree with you that Black on Black violence is a very real issue, nobody could deny that but tell me if it is not a socioeconomic problem what the underling issue that is the problem.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 12:45 PM   #53
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,653

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 12:50 PM   #54
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,653

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 12:52 PM   #55
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default



This song is not about black people, because black people are incapable of farting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 03:46 PM   #56
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

This is garbage. Patients have the right to request who they wish. Some request no males. I only choose female doctors for my primary care - should I be brought up on charges?!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 03:47 PM   #57
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
The rights of the nurses are vastly more important then a stupid dad who is a racist. You have no rights to things that are illegal, like discrimination.
You're an idiot. You've never worked in a hospital. You know nothing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 03:48 PM   #58
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Real big loser,regardless of what the dad wanted,the hospital violated the law accommodating him.
Prove it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 06:37 PM   #59
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Prove it.
You clearly haven't read the thread. Race is not protected under BFOQ. Sex is.

You're clearly the one here who doesn't have a ****ing clue.

As usual.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:26 PM   #60
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
You clearly haven't read the thread. Race is not protected under BFOQ. Sex is.

You're clearly the one here who doesn't have a ****ing clue.

As usual.
I've worked in hospitals for years - how about yourself?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:29 PM   #61
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I've worked in hospitals for years - how about yourself?
Cleaning used bedpans with your tongue (until you were kicked out) doesn't count as practical experience.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:48 PM   #62
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,022

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I've worked in hospitals for years - how about yourself?
I got ya beat I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:23 PM   #63
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I've worked in hospitals for years - how about yourself?
Great! The supervisor that violated federal law probably worked for a hospital for many years, too!

But, alas, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of the law.

I recommend you educate yourself about how employment law is applicable to your own (albeit claimed) line of work. Just might save your job someday.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:34 PM   #64
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

LMFAO.

Ad hominem, retardo speculation, and armchair quarterbacking from clowns that never worked in a hospital.

Yes, that's what I thought.

So you actually think that if there is a demented patient, for example, who lobs racial invectives at people of other races, the staff will ignore it and put just anyone in there?

That's just another example of where they don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:38 PM   #65
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I think the next time a patient hurls racial invective at me or flashes me his family jewels, I'll go suck my thumb and sue.

Derp!

People fire their nurses and doctors all the time, bros.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 09:00 PM   #66
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
LMFAO.

Ad hominem, retardo speculation, and armchair quarterbacking from clowns that never worked in a hospital.

Yes, that's what I thought.

So you actually think that if there is a demented patient, for example, who lobs racial invectives at people of other races, the staff will ignore it and put just anyone in there?

That's just another example of where they don't.
You can say that you work in a hospital all you want. It may even be true, for all anyone knows. It does not change the fact that, as applicable to that profession, gender is considered an acceptable qualification.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=of...w=1024&bih=629

Title VII says:

Quote:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
However, as we know, BFOQ is a defense available under Section 703 of Title VII:

Quote:
Privacy defenses have been upheld in instances where employers require custodians to be the same sex as those in the facility being cleaned, nurses and care providers in hospitals and nursing homes to be of the same sex as patients being assisted, and labor and delivery nurses to be female.63 Courts are often lenient in permitting BFOQs in health care situations.64 In Fesel v. Masonic Home of Delaware, Inc., for example, a court considered sex-based hiring permissible, finding that being a woman was a legitimate BFOQ for an orderly since the patients would not consent to male workers bathing them or providing any other intimate-contact services.
So what happened is they passed the Civil Rights Act, and then proceeded to make exceptions in certain cases where a person's ability to perform their job may be hindered by certain characteristics (e.g. mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and pilots due to safety concerns). Gender is one of those qualifications in the case of hospitals. Race is not.

You.

Have.

No.

****ing.

Clue.

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 09:03 PM   #67
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,847

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Houghtam,

Thanks for sharing this good news. It is good to be educated. I feel like a winner.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 09:34 PM   #68
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I think the next time a patient hurls racial invective at me or flashes me his family jewels, I'll go suck my thumb and sue.

Derp!

People fire their nurses and doctors all the time, bros.
You can refuse service from a nurse until they give you a new one, but you can't really fire a nurse. A doctor you could choose not to see but a hospital can't let patients make choices based on race.

Sure a person can refuse to treated and most hospitals would probably just accomadate the person.

But if a hospital said you can't work today because the patients say they don't want any black nurses, umm yeah they will be getting sued. If they said hey this patient a bigot racist, we were thinking we would just have you not be his nurse for safety reason etc, that would probably be ok. Really this is a stupid issue to argue when we have some really good ones we could be talking about.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 09:55 PM   #69
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
You can refuse service from a nurse until they give you a new one, but you can't really fire a nurse. A doctor you could choose not to see but a hospital can't let patients make choices based on race.

Sure a person can refuse to treated and most hospitals would probably just accomadate the person.

But if a hospital said you can't work today because the patients say they don't want any black nurses, umm yeah they will be getting sued. If they said hey this patient a bigot racist, we were thinking we would just have you not be his nurse for safety reason etc, that would probably be ok. Really this is a stupid issue to argue when we have some really good ones we could be talking about.
And that's exactly what the supervisor should and could have done. Much of law is decided by what a reasonable person would do in any given situation. Had the supervisor taken the tack of apprising the black nurse of the situation and allowing her to make the decision for herself whether to work with the man or not, there's very little chance a lawsuit would hold up in court, because a reasonable employee knows that. The hospital cannot refuse service, so the patient is there whether she likes it or not. If, after being warned about the father, she still chose to brave that situation, the hospital would then likely be released from liability.

If she also didn't notify her supervisors, or her supervisors didn't know the law either. If so, that's negligence, and one of the reasons we have laws like this. And I suppose a hospital being able to tell a sack of **** like that father that they won't comply with racism is probably another.

Now, another poster brought up the fact that the hospital released a statement about what actually happened, and in the context of the article, I basically took it as, the request was made, granted, the nurse wasn't told, at some point the lawyer for the hospital found out and put the kibosh on it, and then they released that statement. I can't imagine she would e suing if nothing actually happened. If so, well then THAT is a frivolous lawsuit.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 11:05 PM   #70
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And that's exactly what the supervisor should and could have done. Much of law is decided by what a reasonable person would do in any given situation. Had the supervisor taken the tack of apprising the black nurse of the situation and allowing her to make the decision for herself whether to work with the man or not, there's very little chance a lawsuit would hold up in court, because a reasonable employee knows that. The hospital cannot refuse service, so the patient is there whether she likes it or not. If, after being warned about the father, she still chose to brave that situation, the hospital would then likely be released from liability.

If she also didn't notify her supervisors, or her supervisors didn't know the law either. If so, that's negligence, and one of the reasons we have laws like this. And I suppose a hospital being able to tell a sack of **** like that father that they won't comply with racism is probably another.

Now, another poster brought up the fact that the hospital released a statement about what actually happened, and in the context of the article, I basically took it as, the request was made, granted, the nurse wasn't told, at some point the lawyer for the hospital found out and put the kibosh on it, and then they released that statement. I can't imagine she would e suing if nothing actually happened. If so, well then THAT is a frivolous lawsuit.
She still doesn't have a good lawsuit. Lawsuits are determined by damages and from what I gather she didn't lose her job or reputation. I don't see any big damages here from that standpoint.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 03:38 AM   #71
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
She still doesn't have a good lawsuit. Lawsuits are determined by damages and from what I gather she didn't lose her job or reputation. I don't see any big damages here from that standpoint.
http://www.theemploymentlawyers.com/...%20damages.htm

Read these cases and then tell me she doesn't have a strong legal argument for remuneration.

Obviously things will change as facts come out. But chances are there will just be some sort of settlement.

Be interesting to see how much. I say it will be hefty.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 07:45 AM   #72
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Well, if you want to get very technical, you could say the "conditions" of employment were somewhat altered in one single situation. In every other respect, nothing about the terms of employment changed. The problem is that the complaint has to navigate a very narrow window for "damages."

The nurse would essentially have to make the argument that she was harmed by not being exposed to a racist client, or suffered serious psychological harm from having a supervisor dare consider not wanting to expose certain staff to one.

Thin at best. There's a case there, but it's not much. It will settle, but I'm sure the terms won't be disclosed when it is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 07:55 AM   #73
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,653

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Don't worry fellas. The lawyers will get paid regardless of the result. Notice that the racist patient who started the ball rolling won't be sued.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:00 AM   #74
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,653

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Also notice the nursing supervisor who made the decision to comply with racist patient won't be sued.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:25 AM   #75
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,651

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Also notice the nursing supervisor who made the decision to comply with racist patient won't be sued.
Yep, not looking for what's right or wrong, just looking for the deep pockets.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Denver Broncos