boycott Dish Network

[M14 Shooter]

Who Are the Patients Receiving Medical Marijuana through the Federal Government's Compassionate IND Program?

Illegal under federal law. Period.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The employee broke the law. DN has every right to fire him.

He didn't' break a law M14, he violated company policy. Let's be clear on that.

Yes he did.
As long as the Feds have all pot as illegal, companies have to abide by it.

A company's zero tolerance drug policy is for illegal drugs. Federal drug policy doesn't enter into it because the business is defined by local state law which also says the cannabis is legal and/or medicinal. Thus as far as a company drug policy is concerned, it's asprin.

Fed laws trump State Laws.

When ever state and federal law clash, the more restrictive law is supposed to take precedence. Think it should be the other way around. State law should always superceed federal for the same reason local school districts make decision for themselves on spending knowing better than what another area might htink priorities should be.

Think the federal government, but for a few things like national defense and treaties should be dissolved altogether. Let the states become autonomous and fully independent from the federal government in all areas of local laws. That's how it supposed to be, but over time federal government trumped every state government. So we have duplicative laws, duplicative constitutions, and redundancy and irrelevancy everywhere.

Completely untrue. Federal and state law should in fact never intercede each other. But we of course have state governments who want to ignore federal law when they don't like and a federal government that constantly wants to overstep its bounds so we have this mess.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

When ever state and federal law clash, the more restrictive law is supposed to take precedence. Think it should be the other way

Supremacy clause. If federal law is more restrictive, it takes precedence. Period.

You are WRONG. The more restrictive has NOTHING to do with it.

A federal law can in fact be LESS restrictive than a state law and still supersede said state law. In a court challenge, the federal law would prevail (assuming the federal law applied of course)

 

[Uncensored2008]

What? LOL there is absolutely ZERO requirements concerning not knowingly hiring a person who is engaging in criminal acts you fool.

A company doesn't have to fire a employee if they find out they broke the law.

God you people are just IGNORANT

I see, so you just make shit up without even attempting to gain the facts and then post it as if you were some sort of authority.

The problem you have is that you don't grasp concepts such as breach of duty of care, nor do you have any concept of the case law involved, such as Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This hokey pokey game needs to stop. Legal in State but not with the Feds is the biggest cat and mouse bullshit going.

Oh and a company firing you for what you do OFF THE JOB is even more bullshit. But dont worry, the American loving Patriots want the companies to be all up in your private life too because, yanno, companies have human rights and stuff

Of course a company should have the right to hire who they want. but then again you believe it's the other way around and you have a right to work wherever you want, right?

Just because you typed "you believe" doesnt mean you're a mind reader. You're just a dumbass who cant address anything I said so you made a pretty strawman to jack up.

Fuck off

Are you saying I'm wrong. Are you saying you DON'T believe a company should have to hire and employees they don't want to hire and retain?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are WRONG. The more restrictive has NOTHING to do with it.

A federal law can in fact be LESS restrictive than a state law and still supersede said state law. In a court challenge, the federal law would prevail (assuming the federal law applied of course)

I would like you to cite case law that supports your claim.

 

[hangover]

...and pot advocates don't have to accommodate (use) Dish network, huh.Can Dish afford to lose half there business on policy?

so boycott them, and I doubt half of their subscribers use anyway.

More than half of the country is for legalization.

Which is not the same thing as being a user.

Also, I am pro legalization, but a company reserves the rights to hire and employ who they wish. Dish does't want smokers, so they shouldn't have to, and don't have to , hire them.

Again....people that are for legalization can boycott Dish to show the company made a bad policy...the point of the OP.

I agree, let them boycott. You would think people would have figured out that boycotts backfire by now, but whatever.

Not necessarily so. When MLB went on strike, many fans boycotted baseball for years. It took MLB a long time to get the fans back. They haven't had a strike since.

The reason boycotts seldom work is because of sheeple. If airlines were boycotted because of their greedy baggage fees, it would end within six months.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This hokey pokey game needs to stop. Legal in State but not with the Feds is the biggest cat and mouse bullshit going.

Oh and a company firing you for what you do OFF THE JOB is even more bullshit. But dont worry, the American loving Patriots want the companies to be all up in your private life too because, yanno, companies have human rights and stuff

Of course a company should have the right to hire who they want. but then again you believe it's the other way around and you have a right to work wherever you want, right?

Just because you typed "you believe" doesnt mean you're a mind reader. You're just a dumbass who cant address anything I said so you made a pretty strawman to jack up.

Fuck off

Are you saying I'm wrong. Are you saying you DON'T believe a company should have to hire and employees they don't want to hire and retain?

I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, but thats why you suck at presenting my ideas.

Present those things you call "thoughts" and I'll present my own. How about that stupid?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When ever state and federal law clash, the more restrictive law is supposed to take precedence. Think it should be the other way

Supremacy clause. If federal law is more restrictive, it takes precedence. Period.

You are WRONG. The more restrictive has NOTHING to do with it.

It has everything to do with it,.
Pot is illegal, regardless of any state laws allowing its use, because it is illegal under federal law.

 

[hangover]

Who Are the Patients Receiving Medical Marijuana through the Federal Government's Compassionate IND Program?

Illegal under federal law. Period.

Take a reading comprehension class.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who Are the Patients Receiving Medical Marijuana through the Federal Government's Compassionate IND Program?

Illegal under federal law. Period.

Take a reading comprehension class.

Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.
Pot is illegal under federal law; no matter how much you may not like it it remains true.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What? LOL there is absolutely ZERO requirements concerning not knowingly hiring a person who is engaging in criminal acts you fool.

A company doesn't have to fire a employee if they find out they broke the law.

God you people are just IGNORANT

I see, so you just make shit up without even attempting to gain the facts and then post it as if you were some sort of authority.

The problem you have is that you don't grasp concepts such as breach of duty of care, nor do you have any concept of the case law involved, such as Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

what does that case have to to do with whether or not a company can hire a person they know has committed a crime or not? Oh that's right , nothing.



In that case, the Court ruled that a company wasn't negligent if they did everything that a reasonable person would do to prevent a negative outcome.

LOL has NOTHING to do with hiring people who have , are, or will commit a crime UNLESS that crime constitutes negligence.

In other words, if I hire a know bank robber as my head chef, and then you get sick from eating at my restaurant and sue me for negligence, the fact that my head chef is a bank robber would not be relevant to your case.

idiot

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This hokey pokey game needs to stop. Legal in State but not with the Feds is the biggest cat and mouse bullshit going.

Oh and a company firing you for what you do OFF THE JOB is even more bullshit. But dont worry, the American loving Patriots want the companies to be all up in your private life too because, yanno, companies have human rights and stuff

Of course a company should have the right to hire who they want. but then again you believe it's the other way around and you have a right to work wherever you want, right?

Just because you typed "you believe" doesnt mean you're a mind reader. You're just a dumbass who cant address anything I said so you made a pretty strawman to jack up.

Fuck off

Are you saying I'm wrong. Are you saying you DON'T believe a company should have to hire and employees they don't want to hire and retain?

I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, but thats why you suck at presenting my ideas.

Present those things you call "thoughts" and I'll present my own. How about that stupid?

Okay how is this for presentation.

The Colorado Constitutional Amendment legalizing marijuana specifically states that employers do NOT have to change their policies regarding marijuana use, so this moron, and every other moron in Colorado should be aware that the Colorado law allows employers to fire people for marijuana use even though it is legal under state law.

This was upheld in this case by the Colorado Supreme Court, and even the plaintiff's attorney said "okay now we have precedence and know where marijuana users stand"

But here you are arguing that Dish was wrong LOL

 

[hangover]

Who Are the Patients Receiving Medical Marijuana through the Federal Government's Compassionate IND Program?

Illegal under federal law. Period.

Take a reading comprehension class.

Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.
Pot is illegal under federal law; no matter how much you may not like it it remains true.

What is it about PATIENTS RECEIVING MEDICAL MARIJUANA THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that is over your tiny little brain?

 

[peach174]

What? LOL there is absolutely ZERO requirements concerning not knowingly hiring a person who is engaging in criminal acts you fool.

A company doesn't have to fire a employee if they find out they broke the law.

God you people are just IGNORANT

I see, so you just make shit up without even attempting to gain the facts and then post it as if you were some sort of authority.

The problem you have is that you don't grasp concepts such as breach of duty of care, nor do you have any concept of the case law involved, such as Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

what does that case have to to do with whether or not a company can hire a person they know has committed a crime or not? Oh that's right , nothing.



In that case, the Court ruled that a company wasn't negligent if they did everything that a reasonable person would do to prevent a negative outcome.

LOL has NOTHING to do with hiring people who have , are, or will commit a crime UNLESS that crime constitutes negligence.

In other words, if I hire a know bank robber as my head chef, and then you get sick from eating at my restaurant and sue me for negligence, the fact that my head chef is a bank robber would not be relevant to your case.

idiot

It depends on the Judge and if he accepts Character assassination.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who Are the Patients Receiving Medical Marijuana through the Federal Government's Compassionate IND Program?

Illegal under federal law. Period.

Take a reading comprehension class.

Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.
Pot is illegal under federal law; no matter how much you may not like it it remains true.

What is it about PATIENTS RECEIVING MEDICAL MARIJUANA THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that is over your tiny little brain?

Pot is illegal under federal law; no matter how much you may not like it it remains true.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What? LOL there is absolutely ZERO requirements concerning not knowingly hiring a person who is engaging in criminal acts you fool.

A company doesn't have to fire a employee if they find out they broke the law.

God you people are just IGNORANT

I see, so you just make shit up without even attempting to gain the facts and then post it as if you were some sort of authority.

The problem you have is that you don't grasp concepts such as breach of duty of care, nor do you have any concept of the case law involved, such as Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

what does that case have to to do with whether or not a company can hire a person they know has committed a crime or not? Oh that's right , nothing.



In that case, the Court ruled that a company wasn't negligent if they did everything that a reasonable person would do to prevent a negative outcome.

LOL has NOTHING to do with hiring people who have , are, or will commit a crime UNLESS that crime constitutes negligence.

In other words, if I hire a know bank robber as my head chef, and then you get sick from eating at my restaurant and sue me for negligence, the fact that my head chef is a bank robber would not be relevant to your case.

idiot

It depends on the Judge and if he accepts Character assassination.

But as a matter of law, no one is going to say "it is reasonable not to hire a bank robber because one of your patrons may get food poisoning" so it becomes irrelevant.

 

[peach174]

Who Are the Patients Receiving Medical Marijuana through the Federal Government's Compassionate IND Program?

Illegal under federal law. Period.

Take a reading comprehension class.

Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.
Pot is illegal under federal law; no matter how much you may not like it it remains true.

What is it about PATIENTS RECEIVING MEDICAL MARIJUANA THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that is over your tiny little brain?

Through research only and just a very few people receive it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

what does that case have to to do with whether or not a company can hire a person they know has committed a crime or not? Oh that's right , nothing.

LOL

The precedent was set for breach of duty of care. The court held that a company cannot knowingly ignore facts that substantially place the organization or the public at risk of harm, and that doing so constitute per se negligence.

Your reaction is a bit like someone asking what Brown v BOE has to do with civil rights.

In that case, the Court ruled that a company wasn't negligent if they did everything that a reasonable person would do to prevent a negative outcome.

LOL has NOTHING to do with hiring people who have , are, or will commit a crime UNLESS that crime constitutes negligence.

In other words, if I hire a know bank robber as my head chef, and then you get sick from eating at my restaurant and sue me for negligence, the fact that my head chef is a bank robber would not be relevant to your case.

idiot

Again, the court established that breach of duty of care is per se negligence and an actionable tort. IF you knowingly hire someone actively involved in criminal act, you have violated the duty of care.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

what does that case have to to do with whether or not a company can hire a person they know has committed a crime or not? Oh that's right , nothing.

LOL

The precedent was set for breach of duty of care. The court held that a company cannot knowingly ignore facts that substantially place the organization or the public at risk of harm, and that doing so constitute per se negligence.

Your reaction is a bit like someone asking what Brown v BOE has to do with civil rights.

In that case, the Court ruled that a company wasn't negligent if they did everything that a reasonable person would do to prevent a negative outcome.

LOL has NOTHING to do with hiring people who have , are, or will commit a crime UNLESS that crime constitutes negligence.

In other words, if I hire a know bank robber as my head chef, and then you get sick from eating at my restaurant and sue me for negligence, the fact that my head chef is a bank robber would not be relevant to your case.

idiot

Again, the court established that breach of duty of care is per se negligence and an actionable tort. IF you knowingly hire someone actively involved in criminal act, you have violated the duty of care.

Which has nothing to do with hiring a criminal