Slashdot Mirror
Can You Be Sued for Quitting?
An anonymous reader asks: "I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor. I had a great relationship with my employer and wanted to leave on good terms, and I hadn't signed any non-compete or employment agreements . I felt my old company had just gotten too large and I didn't like working there anymore, so I gave them two weeks notice in writing. They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building. Has anybody ever heard of this happening? Do they have any legal basis for suing me?" It shouldn't have to be said that seeking professional legal representation, in such a situation, is the first thing one should do.
Neither group really cares about abortion, their beliefs just cause them to disagree on it.
Um, if pro-lifers were really merely "pro-life", why would most of them support the death penalty?
If most anti-abortionists are in fact "pro life," then your claim is that their root belief is somehow in the sanctity of life. Why, then, do so many support the death penalty and George Bush? If there's been any American leader more anti life (anti the life of the poor, anti the life of soldiers, anti the life of criminals), direct my attention to that person and I'll send some bile their way.
Why is there no party that truly represents a pro life agenda? I want no death penalty. I want quality of life --- for everyone. I could handle very limited access to abortion. I am pro life. Where is the party that represents me?
Make love, not sigs
/tangent
They are not 'pro-life'. If they were, they would fighting militantly against anything which ends human life prematurely. Since not all of them do that, it's a misnomer. An award for pernicious irony goes out to the antiabortionist freaks who kill abortion doctors.
More appropriate terms are 'anti-choice' (my personal preference) or 'anti-abortion'.
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
Really? I don't think being pro-life requires being pro-capital punishment. But since you asked, a fetus is innocent while a murderer is not.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Really? I don't think being pro-life requires being pro-capital punishment. But since you asked, a fetus is innocent while a murderer is not.
It's not a requirement, it's just that there are massive numbers of hypocrites who hold both beliefs. Similarly the overlap between the anti-sex education morons is substantial. That overlap demonstrates that "respect for life" or any of the other nonsense crap they claim to support is just that.
The biggest problem with the anti-abortion freaks is that regardless of what nonsense they like to spout, what they believe is exactly this:
They feel that it is their right to hold a gun to somebody's head and force them to go through 9 months of pregnancy and have a child which they have already determined that they can not afford financially, emotionally or otherwise. The woman in question is , of course, the only one with the necessary information to make this determination which demonstrates the plain idiocy and contempt for liberty of the anti-abortion folks.
They, of course, will not pay for the kid which they would have to if they had any integrity at all. In fact, they're generally the same people who vote against any programs to either help these people or help prevent people from being in the situation where they would be faced with such a difficult choice.
Don't get me wrong, they're generally not fiscally responsible people since they love those farm subsidies, utility subsidies and all those other welfare programs they feel they're entitled to pick my pocket to fund in order to avoid being productive members of society.
The fact that they are generally forcing the poor to have kids they can't afford which will keep them poor demonstrates that there is no morality whatsoever behind their motivations, just pure animosity. As further evidenced by the rest of the hate-based legislation they're so fond of supporting.
The fact that they can't have their desires without massive government power demonstrates how dead the old Republican party truly is since their primary base has as it's primary desire something that can't happen without massive police state government powers. Of course, they generally despise America and want to replace it with a fascist theocracy, so they have no problem with that. Of course, the goals of the party elite require massive police state government powers as well so they're quite happy to cater to the extremist wingnuts in this respect as the destruction of the constitution is what they have in common.
So, yes, in specific, there isn't a requirement for such things, but in general, that is how it all shakes out.