Bosses in Iowa can now fire people for giving them erections - Polidicks

Fire Boehner.

I think my misogyny meter just broke guys.

[quote] Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. T[B]he Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.[/B][/quote] The bloody hell. What has a priest to with employment laws. That's just insane that one would even consider something like that.

How about we make lots of good looking women join the companies, then just wait for the companies to fail.

Well, this is a good way to make firing people due to outsourcing easier. Just eat a jar of viagra, then walk down the factory line, pointing at people and yelling "Boner, fired!" [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] Tap the intercom system, then go "Your attention, please. I'm so horny I could fuck Rosie O'Donnell. You are all fired."

haha Riller

he can't get her into bed so he decides to fire her; what a loser [QUOTE][B]"These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don't think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that [I]Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses' sexual desires,"[/I][/B] said attorney Paige Fiedler.[/QUOTE] what the fuck, men are not savages you dumbass

In the state of Indiana, you don't need a legal reason to fire anyone. Keeps you on your toes!

A guy could stuff his pants and get away with it.

I wonder how the boss could actually prove that an employee has an erection, because it could be a number of things causing a bulge.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38930207]This is more or less the same argument radical islamists use for the burqua[/QUOTE] Don't you get it? This is 'murica! I can do whatever the hell I want, or is you some kind of talee-ban luvin' sum-bitch?

it doesn't actually mention erections...

I want to see someone try doing this for a same-sex employee. The key word being [I]try[/I].

Now I'll never get a job.

Why do you even need a reason to fire someone?

[QUOTE=NMDanny;38933995]Why do you even need a reason to fire someone?[/QUOTE] Uh, to prevent grossly unfair termination of employment?

[QUOTE=NMDanny;38933995]Why do you even need a reason to fire someone?[/QUOTE] Most or at least some states require legitimate reasons to fire someone.

Everyone now thinks my state is shittier then it already was, great way to make everyone think our state is retarded.

This is pretty fucking stupid and I am absolutely disgusted, especially being an unanimous vote.

"I'm gonna have to let you go Ms. ----" "B-but.. Why!?" "You gave me an erection.. and I can't have that on my mind as a boss, sitting around all day." this is seriously thee most idiotic law I've seen in a long time

Great, now they have another way to abuse of Iowa women that need the work! Want to fuck a girl? Tell her that, if she doesn't make it with you, she's fired. Want a girl to work overtime? Same.

Is that a banana in your pants, or am I about to get fired?

Good thing I don't live in Iowa

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38933814]it doesn't actually mention erections...[/QUOTE] [quote]Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.[/quote] Unless he was wearing a water balloon and the sight of her made him pee, I would call that an erection.

Imagine it from his point of view. His wife gets so pissed over something as trivial as an employee, to the point where she might even divorce him, leaving him possibly without a house or any money.

[QUOTE=Kiwi Bird;38937216]Imagine it from his point of view. His wife gets so pissed over something as trivial as an employee, to the point where she might even divorce him, leaving him possibly without a house or any money.[/QUOTE] Then his wife is insanely neurotic. That's his problem, not the employee's. He shouldn't have the right to damage someone's career and potentially destabilize their life situation simply because his wife is an insecure, selfish bitch.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;38939587]Then his wife is insanely neurotic. That's his problem, not the employee's. He shouldn't have the right to damage someone's career and potentially destabilize their life situation simply because his wife is an insecure, selfish bitch.[/QUOTE] His wife isn't an insecure, selfish bitch. He is a wanna-be womanizing ass who was looking for an affair, at minimum he deserves to be divorced and lose his home and money. He'd not be in this position if he had the self control to not act like an absolute dog. It is [b]his[/b] fault and his fault alone for this, not his wife, nor his employee. He did this rather than accepting the consequences for what he did. The supreme justices are idiots for making a law because of this. [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] Actually having reservations or disdain for a shallow, seductive or womanizing whore does not in any light mean that you are neurotic or selfish at all.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;38939663]His wife isn't an insecure, selfish bitch. He is a wanna-be womanizing ass who was looking for an affair, at minimum he deserves to be divorced and lose his home and money. He'd not be in this position if he had the self control to not act like an absolute dog. It is [b]his[/b] fault and his fault alone for this, not his wife, nor his employee. He did this rather than accepting the consequences for what he did. The supreme justices are idiots for making a law because of this. [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] Actually having reservations or disdain for a shallow, seductive or womanizing whore does not in any light mean that you are neurotic or selfish at all.[/QUOTE] How is the woman who was fired a womanizing whore? The wife is the one who demanded he fire her. He created the situation by being inappropriate, and then when it got out of hand with his wife, copped out.

Hire shemales and fat chicks.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;38939969]How is the woman who was fired a womanizing whore? The wife is the one who demanded he fire her. He created the situation by being inappropriate, and then when it got out of hand with his wife, copped out.[/QUOTE] You read what I posted a bit wrong, the husband is the would-be womanizer. And it's because of what he did that got his wife upset in the first place. His wife isn't insecure or neurotic or selfish for wanting her husband to do what he did, it's his own fault that he had to fire her. He should have just gone with whatever punishment that would've been dished out to him if he left his worker alone. [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] If anything his wife is gracious for trying to "save the marriage" instead of leaving her husband and stripping him of his assets through the courts, even if it is misguided and her husband is obviously just using his worker as a scapegoat for his own failure to exhibit the traits of an intelligence higher than that of a dog in heat. He isn't worth her time of day.