<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Can They Do to Me?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/</link>
	<description>Wielding the Stick of Grandmotherly Kindness</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:49:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: August Carnival of Bent Attractions : Transadvocate</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-621</link>
		<dc:creator>August Carnival of Bent Attractions : Transadvocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-621</guid>
		<description>[...] but people that are open polyamorists. She answers the question if I&#8217;m poly and out &#8220;What Can They Do to Me?&#8221; &#8220;You’re poly! You’re cutting edge with the open lifestyle of the future. You have [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] but people that are open polyamorists. She answers the question if I&#8217;m poly and out &#8220;What Can They Do to Me?&#8221; &#8220;You’re poly! You’re cutting edge with the open lifestyle of the future. You have [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan M.</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-329</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-329</guid>
		<description>This another reason to live below your means and save up money: so you'll have freedom to walk away from a bad job or let 'em fire you. I told my kids early, "You can have things, or you have have freedom. You can't have both."

Actually, I think employers either want you or they don't.  If they want you, they won't fire you. (They might just ask you to put the triad picture in a drawer so as not to cause talk.) If they don't want you, and are waiting for an excuse, you're already toast and should be looking for another job now.

In the end (unless you've been real bad with your finances), I say you're better off out from under any organization that would ax you for being poly.

"If you put yourself beneath an asshole, you will be shit on. Do not be surprised. This is the normal function of assholes."

--Alan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This another reason to live below your means and save up money: so you&#8217;ll have freedom to walk away from a bad job or let &#8216;em fire you. I told my kids early, &#8220;You can have things, or you have have freedom. You can&#8217;t have both.&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually, I think employers either want you or they don&#8217;t.  If they want you, they won&#8217;t fire you. (They might just ask you to put the triad picture in a drawer so as not to cause talk.) If they don&#8217;t want you, and are waiting for an excuse, you&#8217;re already toast and should be looking for another job now.</p>
<p>In the end (unless you&#8217;ve been real bad with your finances), I say you&#8217;re better off out from under any organization that would ax you for being poly.</p>
<p>&#8220;If you put yourself beneath an asshole, you will be shit on. Do not be surprised. This is the normal function of assholes.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211;Alan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant Denkinson</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-327</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant Denkinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-327</guid>
		<description>Have US trade unions been helpful in these cases? In a dispute with my employer my union would be my first point of call.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have US trade unions been helpful in these cases? In a dispute with my employer my union would be my first point of call.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alton0</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-325</link>
		<dc:creator>Alton0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-325</guid>
		<description>I am a lawyer and would be happy to clear up a couple of points. 

First, yes, an 'at will' employee may be fired, or conversely may quit, at any time, and may be fired for good cause or for no cause, but not for 'bad cause.'  Don't get excited that your notion of 'bad cause' is the same as everyone else's.  Bad cause means the list of protected classes such as age, sex, religion, creed, national origin or disability since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA).

If you are a contractual employee, then you have to follow the terms of the contract, which may say pretty much anything from moral turpitude to 'employee may not wear turtleneck sweaters on the 3rd Thursday of the month.'  

The second issue is about the illegality of adultery.  Yes, the laws are on the books, but that is not the ultimate answer of what is 'legal'.  There is some confusion now as to if there is or isn't a constitutional protection against prosecution for private sexual acts. The case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (for an interesting discussion on that case, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) basically gave constitutional protection for homosexual sex acts because it was done in the privacy of the bedroom.  By extension, adulterous acts should likewise be covered. But really don't worry, nobody gets prosecuted unless you are in the military.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a lawyer and would be happy to clear up a couple of points. </p>
<p>First, yes, an &#8216;at will&#8217; employee may be fired, or conversely may quit, at any time, and may be fired for good cause or for no cause, but not for &#8216;bad cause.&#8217;  Don&#8217;t get excited that your notion of &#8216;bad cause&#8217; is the same as everyone else&#8217;s.  Bad cause means the list of protected classes such as age, sex, religion, creed, national origin or disability since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA).</p>
<p>If you are a contractual employee, then you have to follow the terms of the contract, which may say pretty much anything from moral turpitude to &#8216;employee may not wear turtleneck sweaters on the 3rd Thursday of the month.&#8217;  </p>
<p>The second issue is about the illegality of adultery.  Yes, the laws are on the books, but that is not the ultimate answer of what is &#8216;legal&#8217;.  There is some confusion now as to if there is or isn&#8217;t a constitutional protection against prosecution for private sexual acts. The case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (for an interesting discussion on that case, read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas</a> ) basically gave constitutional protection for homosexual sex acts because it was done in the privacy of the bedroom.  By extension, adulterous acts should likewise be covered. But really don&#8217;t worry, nobody gets prosecuted unless you are in the military.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alienor</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-323</link>
		<dc:creator>alienor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:32:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-323</guid>
		<description>Here's a helpful link for people with (or trying to get) security clearances:

http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/PA/Security/ADJUDICATIVE%20GUIDELINES.doc
http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/guidelines.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a helpful link for people with (or trying to get) security clearances:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/PA/Security/ADJUDICATIVE%20GUIDELINES.doc" rel="nofollow">http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/PA/Security/ADJUDICATIVE%20GUIDELINES.doc</a><br />
<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/guidelines.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/guidelines.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: melstav</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-321</link>
		<dc:creator>melstav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-321</guid>
		<description>Google is your friend.

While not a map of state laws, a search for the three words [ adultery law state ] turned up http://christianparty.net/adulterylaws.htm which has a lot of interesting information..... But I notice that Michigan is absent.

searching for [ adultery law michigan ] turns up two excerpts of note:

First, http://www.sherlockpi.com/infidelity-cases/michigan-adultery-law.php -- a law that has been on the books since 1931, making adultery a felony.

Second, a court ruling from this January ( http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=59535 ) held that the way a recent sex-crime law was written (I don't have a link for it), anyone convicted of adultery would be guilty of a 1st-degree sex crime, and at a minimum have to register as a sex-offender, and at a maximum receive a sentence of life in prison.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google is your friend.</p>
<p>While not a map of state laws, a search for the three words [ adultery law state ] turned up <a href="http://christianparty.net/adulterylaws.htm" rel="nofollow">http://christianparty.net/adulterylaws.htm</a> which has a lot of interesting information&#8230;.. But I notice that Michigan is absent.</p>
<p>searching for [ adultery law michigan ] turns up two excerpts of note:</p>
<p>First, <a href="http://www.sherlockpi.com/infidelity-cases/michigan-adultery-law.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.sherlockpi.com/infidelity-cases/michigan-adultery-law.php</a> &#8212; a law that has been on the books since 1931, making adultery a felony.</p>
<p>Second, a court ruling from this January ( <a href="http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=59535" rel="nofollow">http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=59535</a> ) held that the way a recent sex-crime law was written (I don&#8217;t have a link for it), anyone convicted of adultery would be guilty of a 1st-degree sex crime, and at a minimum have to register as a sex-offender, and at a maximum receive a sentence of life in prison.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YankeeDyke</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-320</link>
		<dc:creator>YankeeDyke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-320</guid>
		<description>Basically, what I remember when I looked into possibly suing an employer for something else, is that if you're not and it's not about one of the "protected" categories, you can forget it, even if you have proof. It sucks, but there it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Basically, what I remember when I looked into possibly suing an employer for something else, is that if you&#8217;re not and it&#8217;s not about one of the &#8220;protected&#8221; categories, you can forget it, even if you have proof. It sucks, but there it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WHC</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-318</link>
		<dc:creator>WHC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-318</guid>
		<description>It's worse than that in NC.  Any sex outside of marriage is a crime.

They don't prosecute very often, but it has been used to fire a state employee who was living with her boyfriend and has been used to deny compensation in domestic violence cases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s worse than that in NC.  Any sex outside of marriage is a crime.</p>
<p>They don&#8217;t prosecute very often, but it has been used to fire a state employee who was living with her boyfriend and has been used to deny compensation in domestic violence cases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: publiusfestus</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-317</link>
		<dc:creator>publiusfestus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-317</guid>
		<description>Actually, the more I think about, the more I think the "family status" protection may apply only to housing. I'll try to check the Wall of Law at work tomorrow (my company actually has it in an obvious place, per the law!).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the more I think about, the more I think the &#8220;family status&#8221; protection may apply only to housing. I&#8217;ll try to check the Wall of Law at work tomorrow (my company actually has it in an obvious place, per the law!).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: publiusfestus</title>
		<link>http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-316</link>
		<dc:creator>publiusfestus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/2007/08/12/legal-cyas/#comment-316</guid>
		<description>Michigan for one protects against discrimination on the basis of "marital status," but I think that's even more sketchy when applied to poly than "sexual orientation."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michigan for one protects against discrimination on the basis of &#8220;marital status,&#8221; but I think that&#8217;s even more sketchy when applied to poly than &#8220;sexual orientation.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
