• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Interesting article in the Telegraph;

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
    Are you familiar with these documents ?
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/
    Again, without taking a position on this, and only to correct a common public misconception, the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with this. The Constitution protects only against actions taken against individuals by the federal and state governments, not by private employers. Generally speaking, in this particular context employment protections provided to employees of private employers derive from state law, which varies across all 50 states. One does not have "free speech" or "free association" rights under the Constitution with respect to a private employer.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
      Your point ?
      Are you familiar with these documents ?
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/


      I can't add to what the employment law attorney has said so far.

      Comment

      • Original Poster

        #23
        I think this is a federal body.

        The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
        http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/reli...#_Toc203359487
        ... _. ._ .._. .._

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
          I think this is a federal body.

          The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
          http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/reli...#_Toc203359487
          All true, but this continues to miss the point, and the very reference cited demonstrates it. I did not mean this to be a civics lesson, but so be it. The EEOC (which I deal with on a near-daily basis) is a federal administrative agency. It does not make the law, nor does it have any power to interpret the law, which is the job of the courts. It is charged with enforcing certain federal anti-discrimination laws passed by Congress. The EEOC often takes positions that are aspirational and its positions are sometimes rejected by the courts. Just because the EEOC says something in its Compliance Manual does not make it law; it advocates a specific position on what it believes (or wants) the law to be, and sometimes its positions change, depending upon the presidential administration in charge of the agency.

          The actual basis for the proscription on religious discrimination is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal statute. The Federal Courts interpret that statute and have the final say-so on what it means, not the EEOC. Not all political positions/beliefs/personal philosophies are protected by Title VII; indeed, most are not, and even the EEOC acknowledges this. In the materials you cited, "Example 6" is most like the situation in the Telegraph article.

          To be protected, an anti-hunting stance would have to part of a much wider comprehensive and articulable belief system not limited to that particular issue that is religious in character. "One dimensional" and "single-faceted" issue-based viewpoints are not considered "religious" and not protected. A belief system does not have to be theist at all, but it does have to have some of the the trappings and characteristics of a religion -- particularly comprehensiveness -- to be protected.

          The test most often used examines whether the "religious" belief is one that: (1) addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters; (2) is part of a religion that is comprehensive in nature and consists of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching; and (3) can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.

          The reason the courts take a very hard look at professed "religions" in this way is that anyone can try to characterize a particular viewpoint as "religious" without much effort.

          For example, someone on the political right might have a deeply held personal philosophy that the government should not be able to tax its citizens (like Ron Paul). Someone on the far left might have a deeply held belief that all wealth must be shared equally. Are those religious beliefs protected by Title VII?

          Most courts say no; and for good reason -- when you start characterizing personal beliefs that are discrete from some sort of comprehensive belief system as religion, you start protecting everything under the sun, which would lead to chaos. For example, the Ku Klux Klan has tried to argue that it is a "religion" -- a stance that was rejected by the courts; the KKK was considered to be a political and social organization, not a religious one. The same could be said of PETA, or the Sierra Club, or any number of issue-based organizations whose members have deeply held beliefs.

          It is fear of this slippery slope which makes courts -- the actual government body that interprets the law (not the EEOC) act very carefully when characterizing a specific political viewpoint as "religion" subject to protection.

          In one fairly close example, the California Court of Appeals refused to characterize veganism as a "religious belief" under a state statute that parallels Title VII, despite the plaintiff's sincerely held belief that any use of animals was wrong.

          If the person at issue in the Telegraph article lived in the U.S., was a Hindu who held a religion-based belief that all life is sacred and all killing is wrong, and was terminated because she was Hindu, then you'd have a point. But a political activist who participates in activities that are discrete from any particular religious practice is not protected, even if based upon a deeply-held belief of what is right or wrong; based upon the article, this is what the employee in question appears to be.

          This is a nuanced area, and courts struggle over the close calls, especially where a professed religious belief is not mainstream. You can't get a good understanding of how this aspect of Title VII works without reading multiple cases on the subject (or better yet, litigating one) -- certainly not by just reading a non-binding EEOC document in a vacuum. People make the same arguments you are making all the time, based upon the same sources -- the argument itself is not illegitimate. It is just rejected 99 times out of 100. Without more, few courts would consider a typical issue-based anti-hunting stance to be a "religion" protected under Title VII.

          Employers in most states have significant leeway in terminating an employee for whatever reason they want, and Title VII generally does not protect political or social views. Again, I am not saying this is right or wrong; it is just the way it is.

          Sorry for the long post; it just seems that there is considerable misunderstanding in this area, even by smart and educated people. Hopefully this helps to illuminate it some.
          Last edited by Peregrine Farm; Dec. 27, 2011, 11:09 PM.

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            #25
            Originally posted by mildot View Post
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...g-beliefs.html

            Un-freaking-real:

            Thank God here in America such a tool would be laughed out of civil court for such a case.
            So - the case COULD be made in the USA, depending on all the FACTS, to which we (in this instance) have not been made made privy.
            ... _. ._ .._. .._

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Equibrit View Post
              So - the case COULD be made in the USA, depending on the FACTS, to which we have not been made privy.
              Go back and re-read everything Peregine Farm posted, really carefully.

              Comment

              Working...
              X