- CuteOldGuy
- 09-23-2012, 07:22 AM
Why do you make that stupid comparison? I've already said numerous times that GW Bush should stand trial for war crimes.
- Munchmasterman
- 09-23-2012, 07:41 AM
[QUOTE=LexusLover;3228341]
Well bite this.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
It is helpful for the victim to directly inform the harasser that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.
When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.
And finally,
The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
You are wrong in your definition of sexual harassment.
In any objective circle this is called consensual sex. There was no pressure on her. No coercion. [/QUOTE]As usual you think a complicated subject can be covered in a sound bite.
#1: When one party is a superior it is legally considered non-consensual, with pressure, and with coercion. In business, the government, and the military. It is sexual harassment, and has been since Clarence Thomas took overp? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Well bite this.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
It is helpful for the victim to directly inform the harasser that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.
When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.
And finally,
The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
You are wrong in your definition of sexual harassment.
- LexusLover
- 09-23-2012, 08:25 AM
[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;3228447]
Before you go make sexual advances toward your employees (if you have any and if you have enough to qualify for EEOC attention) you should consult an attorney. Your command of the case law interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is lacking! You don't go cherry pick provisions from the website and cite that as "authority" .... the Federal Judge aint' gonna buy it!
apples and oranges ... coworkers vs. supervisors.
I can cite you appellate opinions involving so called "consentual" relationships. The employees win fat judgments and the "supervisor" gets canned, not the victim-employee ... and that is exactly what HE or she is considered ... by that I mean that there are sexual harrassment cases upheld on appeal in which the employee is a male and the supervisor is a female.
The issue in the Clarance Thomas hearngs, BTW, was not whether it was "consensual" it was that it happened in the first place. The irony of that hearing is that Clarence Thomas established the initial sexual harassment guidelines for the EEOC ... at that time same sex relationships were not considered as a legitimate basis for a complaint. That was an add on and supervisors were covered then as well ... meaning a male employee and a male supervisor.
The "she was asking for it" days are long gone.
Clinton knew that ... that is why he lied. FYI: Hillary already knew about his shit.
Right back at you:
As usual you think a complicated subject can be covered in a sound bite.
Well bite this. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Before you go make sexual advances toward your employees (if you have any and if you have enough to qualify for EEOC attention) you should consult an attorney. Your command of the case law interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is lacking! You don't go cherry pick provisions from the website and cite that as "authority" .... the Federal Judge aint' gonna buy it!
apples and oranges ... coworkers vs. supervisors.
I can cite you appellate opinions involving so called "consentual" relationships. The employees win fat judgments and the "supervisor" gets canned, not the victim-employee ... and that is exactly what HE or she is considered ... by that I mean that there are sexual harrassment cases upheld on appeal in which the employee is a male and the supervisor is a female.
The issue in the Clarance Thomas hearngs, BTW, was not whether it was "consensual" it was that it happened in the first place. The irony of that hearing is that Clarence Thomas established the initial sexual harassment guidelines for the EEOC ... at that time same sex relationships were not considered as a legitimate basis for a complaint. That was an add on and supervisors were covered then as well ... meaning a male employee and a male supervisor.
The "she was asking for it" days are long gone.
Clinton knew that ... that is why he lied. FYI: Hillary already knew about his shit.
- joe bloe
- 09-23-2012, 08:32 AM
It's bizarre how the libs will defend Clinton in this. In any objective circle, he was a predator preying on young, impressionable woman. In any company, this would be punished. The woman would have a lawsuit and make millions. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThe amazing thing, is the way NOW defended Clinton. As long as he protected a woman's "right" to have a partial birth abortion, nothing else mattered to them. Juanita Broaddrick could have had rock solid proof of her rape allegation; they wouldn't have cared.
- LexusLover
- 09-23-2012, 08:40 AM
The amazing thing, is the way NOW defended Clinton. As long as he protected a woman's "right" to have a partial birth abortion, nothing else mattered to them. Juanita Broaddrick could have had rock solid proof of her rape allegation; they wouldn't have cared. Originally Posted by joe bloeThe same crap from the liberals is happening right now. Re-define, re-characterize, re-write, re-vise, and re-negotiate ... anything to get the "community organzier" re-elected.
And now they are "re-treading" ... while they re-invent!
- joe bloe
- 09-23-2012, 08:51 AM
The same crap from the liberals is happening right now. Re-define, re-characterize, re-write, re-vise, and re-negotiate ... anything to get the "community organzier" re-elected.Obama is the most radical president in American history. If Obama is in office, and we have a complete economic collapse, there is no way this country will stay free.
And now they are "re-treading" ... while they re-invent! Originally Posted by LexusLover
Obama understands, that if the country is in chaos, bordering on civil war, he will be able to implement a police state with the people's permission. Most people will trade their freedom for the promise of security in that scenario.
- Old-T
- 09-23-2012, 09:04 AM
I find it ironic: on THIS site we have so many people who find consentual sex to be evil--but only when it involved someone they loath already.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game. But anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game. But anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit.
- LexusLover
- 09-23-2012, 09:16 AM
I find it ironic: on THIS site we have so many people who find consentual sex to be evil--but only when it involved someone they loath already. Originally Posted by Old-TYou need to get a grip .... there are a number of areas of the law in which "consensual" sex is criminalized, punished, and prohibited ... the general areas are age and relationship related ... one topic is taboo on this board ... you know that one!
the other has to do with persons who are in positions of "authority" e.g. cops, teachers, employers-supervisors ...
what IS hypocritical about this topic IS ...
that "cops, teachers, and employers-supervisors" get punished and charged, but ..
... Bill Clinton DID NOT!
Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), et seq, outlines the basis for companies being held "presumptively" liable for discrimination based on sex when supervisors in the company engage in "consensual" sexual activity with subordinates. ....
you can slice it any way you want to and raise all the insults you can dream up, but when the boss starts hitting on the hot babes in the business the boss and his company are "going down" ... and I don't mean oral sex!
- I B Hankering
- 09-23-2012, 09:36 AM
You need to get a grip .... there are a number of areas of the law in which "consensual" sex is criminalized, punished, and prohibited ... the general areas are age and relationship related ... one topic is taboo on this board ... you know that one!+1
the other has to do with persons who are in positions of "authority" e.g. cops, teachers, employers-supervisors ...
what IS hypocritical about this topic IS ...
that "cops, teachers, and employers-supervisors" get punished and charged, but ..
... Bill Clinton DID NOT!
Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), et seq, outlines the basis for companies being held "presumptively" liable for discrimination based on sex when supervisors in the company engage in "consensual" sexual activity with subordinates. ....
you can slice it any way you want to and raise all the insults you can dream up, but when the boss starts hitting on the hot babes in the business the boss and his company are "going down" ... and I don't mean oral sex! Originally Posted by LexusLover
- ElisabethWhispers
- 09-23-2012, 10:12 AM
I find it ironic: on THIS site we have so many people who find consentual sex to be evil--but only when it involved someone they loath already.So true!!!
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game. But anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit. Originally Posted by Old-T
- Yssup Rider
- 09-23-2012, 10:42 AM
Obama is the most radical president in American history. If Obama is in office, and we have a complete economic collapse, there is no way this country will stay free.Big talk from a dude who won't put his money where his mouth is. Willing to accept hide behind the skirts of freedom that others have died for but not willing to lift a finger to fix any of the nation's ills. American's have a name for that: COWARD!
Obama understands, that if the country is in chaos, bordering on civil war, he will be able to implement a police state with the people's permission. Most people will trade their freedom for the promise of security in that scenario. Originally Posted by joe bloe
Man up, sloe job, and take the bet.
- joe bloe
- 09-23-2012, 10:53 AM
I find it ironic: on THIS site we have so many people who find consentual sex to be evil--but only when it involved someone they loath already.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game. But anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit. Originally Posted by Old-T
The whole point about Clinton's sexual behavior is that he crossed the line from consensual sex to non-consensual sex. That's why he got into trouble. I think you probably realize that.
Having sex, with someone who works for you, crosses the line. (Monica Lewinsky)
Having state troopers bring a complete stranger to your hotel room, exposing yourself, and asking for a blowjob, crosses the line. (Paula Jones)
Feeling out an emotionally distressed employee, who is asking for a raise, crosses the line. (Kathleen Willey)
Forcible rape crosses the line. (Juanita Broaddrick)
- I B Hankering
- 09-23-2012, 11:00 AM
I find it ironic: on THIS site we have so many people who find consentual sex to be evil--but only when it involved someone they loath already.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Hypoctits.
Other issues, fire away at Clinton. Fair game. But anyone juming on this who has a review on here--or had had some sessions without reviewing them, is a two-faced hypocrit. Originally Posted by Old-T
So true!!! Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispersYou two are soooo Kool Aid dumb and blind, and you two are the hypocrites. Perjury is a crime and subject to prosecution under the law, when caught. P4P is a crime subject to prosecution under the law, if caught. Can either one of you Dim-witted yahoos deny those facts?
Furthermore, what Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer did on multiple occasions is against federal regulations and prosecutable under those same regulations.
Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer was caught violating the law -- he was sworn to uphold and enforce (hypocrite extraordinaire!) -- and he was caught (multiple times) violating sexual harassment federal regulations.
Like LL pointed out, other government employees would be dismissed with cause. Others would have been jailed for perjury. Slick Willie the Sexual Predator Perjurer suffered neither consequence; that's hypocrisy!
- i'va biggen
- 09-23-2012, 11:04 AM
I liked SNL'S description of slick Willie I bet it was all consensual until there was something to be gained from it...
- joe bloe
- 09-23-2012, 11:24 AM
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.