quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Quoting directly from the article...

quote:

Weyco's controversial move pits employers' rights against those of employees and may pave the way for other private companies to invoke their own potentially discriminatory tactics in the bid to lower rapidly ballooning health-care costs, legal experts say.
<snip>
In Michigan, workers don't have legal recourse if they're fired for lifestyle-behavior issues; 29 states have laws protecting workers in those circumstances, she said.

quote:

quote:

Weyco's controversial move pits employers' rights against those of employees and may pave the way for other private companies to invoke their own potentially discriminatory tactics in the bid to lower rapidly ballooning health-care costs, legal experts say.

What's more, Weyco's policy may open the door for employers to make employment more difficult to obtain for obese people or those with genetic predispositions for diseases, some warn.

"When an employer tries to deal with health-care costs by selecting or promoting employees based on their non-work-related qualifications or qualities, you're really entering a slippery slope," said Kary Moss, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which supports smoking regulations at the workplace but not those that extend beyond it.

In Michigan, workers don't have legal recourse if they're fired for lifestyle-behavior issues; 29 states have laws protecting workers in those circumstances, she said.

quote:

it DOES NOT HAVE an ashtray or a lighter!

quote:

My mother, of course, applauds Toyota for taking this anti-smoking stance

quote:

The standard ash tray/lighter is now an option. An option that costs extra.

quote:

For me, a woman who smokes is just incredibly sexy, seductive..erotic....she combines everything I love about the opposite sex. The horny, hot, whore, wanton, slut, bad-girl side and the more ladylike, seductive, glamourous feminine side. But I think it's even more than that. I think it's the fact that a lady "in the know" can have such power over me, such control, from across the far side of a packed room....must be lighting up that cigarette....looking right at me as she does...locking my eyes to her...that almost imperceptable smirk in her eyes that says "I know what I'm doing to you...just think....if I'm a bad enough girl to smoke, what else am I bad enough to do?"
http://smokefetish.blogspot.com/2005/02/defining-fetish.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176

This is the problem with allowing government to discriminate against private behaviors. Once the door is opened and the precedent is set, the way is paved for increasing encroachment upon civil liberty from both public and private sources. It is utter hypocrisy to defend the rights of homosexuals engaging in private behavior and emasculate the rights of smokers engaging in private behaviors.

I don't mean to be offensive to those of homosexual persuasions, but the parallel is there. The biggest barrier to providing homosexuals with the same legal protections as heterosexuals is and always has been the squickness factor. People who don't want to be exposed to possible displays of homosexual affection power the drive to keep homosexuals in a position where it's neccessary to hide their proclivities.

Unfortunately for us all, now that the proverbial Pandora's Box has been opened, it will be difficult if not impossible to overturn the legal precedent. The "victims" of the Evil Big Tobacco Companies introduced litigation for decades before the first trial but were ultimately victorious. Now Big Business has a legal precedent upon which to build discriminatory employment criteria.

Thus far the lawsuits against Evil Fast Food Companies have been dismissed and may continue to be for decades to come but the precedent has been set by the crusade against tobacco. Eventually, assuming a further shift to the right doesn't occur within the Supreme Court, fast food will be found to be responsible for obesity, regardless of, or even in opposition to, the scientific facts. When that happens, someone in the private sector will start the ball rolling, banning fast food from company property.

I've never been able to rationalize selective discrimination because I've always understood that it's a knife that can turn in the hand of the wielder. If I support penalizing or even criminalizing my neighbor's behavior simply because I don't like to see, hear or smell it, what protection do I have if he finds a behavior of mine offensive? Live and let live makes sense not only in respecting others' kinks but is simply good business across the board.
Timothy