Originally Posted By DAR <<NO SMALL BUSINESSES COULD POSSIBLY BE EFFECTED BY THIS NO MATTER WHAT.>> Not yet.
Originally Posted By Mr X NEVER, DUMMY. THAT'S NOT THE NATURE OF THE BILL IN QUESTION! IT WAS ONLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO BUSINESS WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS THAT FORCED EMPLOYEES TO SIGN AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO SUE IN THE EVENT THEY WERE RAPED ON THE JOB.
Originally Posted By DAR <<IT WAS ONLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO BUSINESS WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS THAT FORCED EMPLOYEES TO SIGN AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO SUE IN THE EVENT THEY WERE RAPED ON THE JOB.>> but why should a business be sued if it had nothing to do with an assault?
Originally Posted By barboy ///Why be scared of lawsuits?/// I now hope that one frivolously sues you, Sport since you seem to take such a cavalier attitude toward defending one's interests. You might have to pay several thousand but no biggie...it's fun, you'll enjoy it--- I promise!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>but why should a business be sued if it had nothing to do with an assault?<< It shouldn't be. But if it is, and it is a frivilous lawsuit or one without evidence, that will become evident during the proceedings. Every one of the senators in that group of 30 should feel very ashamed of this vote.
Originally Posted By DAR Except it needs stop being classified as a vote for rape. Nobody is coming down on that side.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Had those 30 senators prevailed, it would be far easier for a repeat performance of what happened to this woman to occur again. Too bad if that makes them -- or anyone who struggles to support their vote -- uncomfortable.
Originally Posted By DAR There's nothing uncomfortable because they AREN'T siding with the actual rapist.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan They are siding with the company that actually covered up a gang rape. Read that again: The company covered up a gang rape. They don't want the victim to be able to sue the company for IT'S PART IN HER RAPE. They don't want future victims of rape to be able to sue employers if the same situation happened tomorrow. So yes, DAR, like it or not, they are siding with the actual rapist.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Thankfully, they were defeated by a majority of clear thinking people, including some Republicans, who saw right from wrong. But I say we need to keep an eye on those 30 senators, because even in something that is very clear to any reasonable person, something that is quite basic and non-partisan, they couldn't see fit to vote correctly. I have to listen to idiots telling me my president is from Kenya and a Nazi and all the rest, but I am supposed to be understanding and patient with 30 senators who, on a real no-brainer, voted the exact wrong way. No, sir.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I have to listen to idiots telling me my president is from Kenya and a Nazi and all the rest, but I am supposed to be understanding and patient with 30 senators who, on a real no-brainer, voted the exact wrong way. No, sir.<< Amazing how wrong-headed the thinking is, isn't it?
Originally Posted By DAR <<They don't want future victims of rape to be able to sue employers if the same situation happened tomorrow.>> In this case it didn't happen, the company then knew and I'll say they should be punished. But the overall vote is to protect companies who in the future had no idea a rape occurred. But silly me putting the actual blame on the rapist.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Amazing how wrong-headed the thinking is, isn't it?<< I mean, if there were ever a piece of legislation that should end with the word "DUH!" this would be it. And yet, 30 GOP senators, so deep in the pockets of their defense contractor sugar daddies they can't see daylight anymore, can't seem to find the courage to do something truly, obviously, right. It is stunning.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In this case it didn't happen, the company then knew and I'll say they should be punished.<< HOW CAN THEY BE WITHOUT LEGISLATION SUCH A THIS!!!!!!!?????? Good God almighty, I think you'd argue if I said your screen name on Laughing Place.com is DAR.
Originally Posted By DAR Nobody has been able to explain why a company should be sued if they had no idea such an act occured on their premises.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But the overall vote is to protect companies who in the future had no idea a rape occurred.<< No, it wasn't. And anyway, they lost, because fortunately a majority of senators totally disagree with your assessment.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Nobody has been able to explain why a company should be sued if they had no idea such an act occured on their premises.<< Because why would a company be sued if they had no idea the rape occurred on their premises? What would be the grounds for that lawsuit? Nothing. Zero. In other words, it never makes it to court.
