No. I already told at will employment still must follow many existing laws. You can read each source for yourself. Neither is long at all. You refusing to read something is not an argument.
The whole aspect about supporting one's argument is to have specific evidence that relates to one's argument. you hd several sources which were general which had nothing to do with your argument. You're not a legal expert therefore considering your admission, instead of relying on you to be honest and simply say "you don't know," you post several links and expect me to read several different links to understand what you're talking about.
This is not how things work when debating a point....
Let me help you and show you how to argue a point....
For example, my position regarding being fired after being falsely accused is thus: The time it takes to demonstrate proof after being fired as well as arrested may hinder one to take action against the accuser because of the lack of resources. More importantly, being publicly sentenced (via social media) and thus losing one's job is in itself harming the one being accused therefore the punishment (if such a law would come into existence) against the one doing the accusing and thus determined by arbitration to be ultimately false must fit the crime.
But what about getting one's job back after being fired?
This is where a simple research on your end comes into play as I clearly wrote in google "what do you do if you are fasely accused of rape but get fired?"
Several links came up.....
In my brief research, according to my state's several attorney sources being accused of rape (falsely) is a common occurrence in California. But in regards to at-will employment at least in California, you can only sue for wrongful termination under the following:
"You may feel that you have been framed and you can do nothing about proving that you haven’t done anything wrong. However, in most cases, if you are an at-will employee, this type of termination would not be consider unlawful, however unfair it might seem. There are a few exception to this, most of which fall into two categories.
- There is specific evidence that the real reason for termination is discriminatory or retaliatory, i.e. due to your age, disability, race, sexual orientation, filing a workers comp claim, or making certain protected complaints or disclosures. Of course, simple having a disability, or being of a particular race or age doesn’t prove that that’s the reason you were false accused of something. There has to be evidence that links the employer’s motive to terminate you with discrimination or retaliation. These can be e-mails, text messages, social media postings containing statements by the decision makers that they had it out for you due to a discriminatory reason, or witnesses who overheard conversations by managers suggesting that the true reason for your termination was discriminatory.
- The employer defamed you by accusing you of fraud, theft or other crimes and stating those accusations orally or in writing to people outside of this employer (i.e. to potential employers, customers, etc…). Or, the false accusations about you were made internally only, but there is specific evidence that you were accused for improper reason, i.e. the manager who accused you had it out for you due to prior history of conflicts between the two of you."
Source:
Is Being Fired Due To False Accusations A Wrongful Termination
In other words, as an at-will employee it is highly unlikely you'll get your job back or can sue because someone falsely accused you of sexual assault. See how simple that is? Instead of several links just post the damn information.
This comes down to enforcement issues and how women are treated different in the legal system. I am in favour of enforcing existing laws and removing the bias in favour of women in general.
Enforcing what existing laws? Any laws on this matter is either a simple civil suit or a misdemeanor. In my state California, filing a false police report in cases of sexual assault results in a misdemeanor in CA Penal code section 148.5 makes filing a false police report a misdemeanor in which the person may face a fine and up to six months in county jail. Hardly comparable to the actual harm that is meted out from the false accusation. So you're in favor of someone who can falsely accuse someone and that person spends five years in prison, gets vindicated, has to find legal counsel, spends time and money only for the one who made the false accusation spend only six months in jail? That is fair to you?
I am not talking about terms of service. I am talking about Google, twitter and FB political bias which is outside terms of service.
What political bias? Can you prove bias or is this another right-wing conservative cry baby whining?
This is nothing but a response to a strawman in your head. Did I say Nazi's? No. Did I say anti-semtism? No. I pointed out all those sites ignore the left's rhetoric as the organizations are run by leftists. Go look up some of the stuff said about those Catholic kids. Threats of violence, expressions of joy over their death, offering money in return for violence against the students. I was pointing there is no balance in application of rules as leftist has zero issue with calls to violence from their own. These statements stay around for days with no issue. Only when fake news was exposed, again, did those statements start to be deleted. I was advocating for balance but you went straight into leftist rhetoric.
Try again you leftist hack.
You cried:
"Social media acts as both when it suits their argument. They are a publisher when it is a conservative but a platform for hateful views from the left as most of social media is on the left, thus hypocrites. Government is only involved by forcing those companies to pick between one or the other and enforcing regulations/laws."
First off you have no proof of the political leans of social media. Second, you cannot prove what the hell you're talking about what you say "all those sites ignores the left's rhetoric" what rhetoric? What organizations are you referring to? You don't even know what the hell you are talking about.
