Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This on the same page where other officials are going to REQUIRE the inclusion of fruit juice in the pop machines at school so the kids that don't drink up all the soda are going to be stuck with---yup--fruit juice!

Oh the injustice of it all!

1 posted on 03/05/2004 2:45:30 PM PST by at bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: at bay
Homosexuality is proven to be a more dangerous and medically costly habit. Can the Sheriff discriminate on that basis as well?
2 posted on 03/05/2004 2:49:50 PM PST by thoughtomator (Political Correctness is fascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
What's next? A comprehensive donut ban?
3 posted on 03/05/2004 2:52:57 PM PST by John Thornton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Good, maybe he won't arrest me for the same reason. PUFF.

CG
4 posted on 03/05/2004 3:02:36 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (The word "Tagline" needs to be added to Free Republic's Spell Check.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay; admin
Working link:

http://www.smdailyjournal.org/article.cfm?issue=03-04-04&storyID=28654
5 posted on 03/05/2004 3:21:53 PM PST by JoJo Gunn (Intellectuals exist only if you believe they do. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Pure Discrimination.
6 posted on 03/05/2004 3:55:40 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
That's it, if you eat bacon we can't hire you. Contributes to heart disease.
7 posted on 03/05/2004 3:56:47 PM PST by squidly (Money is inconvenient for them: give them victuals and an arse-clout, it is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Sounds in line with today's Amerikaka.

Next, no fat cops or drinkers.
11 posted on 03/05/2004 4:21:01 PM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Butts out for health reasons; b*8tF888ing okay, despite higher (& higher cost) health risks.

Depends on which butt user you prefere not to offend, I guess; not which costs taxpayers more in the end.
13 posted on 03/05/2004 7:27:58 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Smokers are free to seek employment at privately-owned security services which might not care that they smoke.
18 posted on 03/06/2004 9:52:37 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Since smoking is known to cause numerous health problems, Horsley said the decision to not hire smokers is an economical move that could save the county a lot of money in workers’ compensation costs each year.

The key to this is that he fears legal awards in the future because our courts permit hugh awards. He believes this is a way to immunize the county of having to pay awards for permitting his deputies to smoke on the job.

The next step is to fire all officers who eat donuts on the job. This is the county I lived in before I left California. I got out just in time.

24 posted on 03/06/2004 10:28:30 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
“If your lifestyle contributes to a disability, I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay.” said Horsley.

Does that mean that no deviants/perverts/AIDS-spreaders need apply? Why doesn't he just say so?
Isn't "equal protection" a popular talking point/buzz-word these days?

I'm confused.

25 posted on 03/06/2004 10:31:37 AM PST by Publius6961 (50.3% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks (subject to a final count).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
“If your lifestyle contributes to a disability, I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay.” said Horsley.

Well said

26 posted on 03/06/2004 10:34:27 AM PST by realpatriot71 ("But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . ." (I Cor. 1:27))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
What a pu**y of a sheriff.
38 posted on 03/06/2004 1:38:12 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
I don't have a problem with a sheriff not wanting to hire drug users, tobacco users included. Hirer medical cost and less productivity are good reasons.Think how many times the tobacco junkies have to go outside to get high and add all that time up.
50 posted on 03/06/2004 6:01:34 PM PST by dallasgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
If I lived out there I would be inclined to apply for a job with this sheriff's dept.

Having worked in HR for 32 years, I am pretty well versed in what kinds of things can be asked on applications and what can and cannot be asked in interviews.

Any questions asked during interviews which do not pertain to an individual's qualifications for the specific job can be misinterpreted by the interviewee as being discriminatory.

If you want to ask me whether or not I am a smoker during the interview process, you damn well better be prepared to be able to document the fact that I can not perform the required duties of such job merely because I am a smoker.

The second you ask me any question relevant to the legal practice of tobacco use, you have now opened the door for me to file a legitimate claim of discrimination with the EEOC.........

53 posted on 03/06/2004 6:07:18 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (I've dealt with stupid people for over 32 years. Haven't I earned the right to just shoot them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
How the heck is he going to know if his deputies are smoking on their own time? Oh right, I forgot...random drug testing.
55 posted on 03/06/2004 6:43:05 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
But I did not shoot the deputy.
71 posted on 03/07/2004 3:42:09 AM PST by Gazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
I'll bet they have racial quotas too. Smkers just happen to be on the "officially acceptable to discriminate against" list.
77 posted on 03/07/2004 7:50:19 AM PST by sweetliberty (To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
Many companies, mine included, won't hire smokers. So we just check the "Don't Smoke" box, and be sure not to get caught. Seems to work quite well. If seen by someone and reported to be a smoker, we just deny it. Companies are afraid of lawsuits, and they run away if they don't have solid evidence that would hold up in court. Smoke away!
82 posted on 03/07/2004 8:40:00 AM PST by AnHoa1967
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: at bay
BUMP
97 posted on 03/07/2004 11:22:11 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson