Trump wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough, say employees at his golf club

Trump's well-documented problems with women have come to the fore again, ever since they were featured prominently in Monday's debate.

The LA Times has a story out today about a 2012 lawsuit by employees at one of his golf course, in which they filed sworn affidavits describing his sexism.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-trump-women/

Trump's people repeatedly told a manager to fire a talented but overweight employee.

Besides wanting managers to (illegally) fire hostesses he didn't consider attractive enough, Trump harassed attractive staffers.

He treated grown women as if they were children. He asked one hostess if she was married. When she said "yes", he repeatedly asked if she was happily married.

Several women quit or were fired because managers told them that they weren't attractive enough.

But ignore all that. Trump is a feminist because he says so!

 

Lol Ted was right all along

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...a-is-sitting-on-bombshells-about-donald-trump

 

Not seeing any evidence whatsoever that links these 'stories' directly to Trump aside from speculation and innuendo...

 

Er, these are sworn affidavits in a court case.

And Trump is directly mentioned in several of the affidavits.

 

None of that will be a problem in politics. Politics is Hollywood for the ugly.

 

where are democrats when strippers are fired, or not hired, because of how ugly they are? they never seem to point out its perfectly legal for some companies to terminate and judge potential employees based on looks, but when it comes to Trump they now somehow demand equality and all these rights be upheld... but I don't see democrats outraged or working on ending the hiring practices of strip clubs, porn shoots, or countless other industries including the bar industry where people are clearly discriminated against solely based upon looks... where is the equal outrage for all of the instances in life, why are they only outraged when its a "republican" in the fold...

P.S. where is the fight for ugly women in the workplace, attractive women get paid more than ugly women on average, nobody ever complains about that... where is all this demand for rights when it comes to reality, it only seems to come when you can punish someone politically, in order to gain power... so its not rights people are fighting for, its political power they are fighting for... stop being the sheep and realize what this is REALLY all about...

 

Really can't be much worse than 'stand by your man' feminist Clinton and her raping husband. Either way, if this was anything important it would have come out long ago. These sad little attempts to sift through minutia to find dirt on Trump only make liberals look more and more pathetic every day...

 

Uh ... a golf club is not a strip club or a porn site.

Employers can discriminate on the basis of a "bona fide occupational qualification." That's why movie producers, for example, don't have to audition men to fill a woman's role in a movie.

So a strip club can hire only attractive women to be strippers.

It cannot, however, discriminate in other areas -- like the kitchen, or the janitorial staff.

 

Sure. Try to equate this to a wronged spouse. Good luck with that.

Er, the lawsuit occurred only recently -- 2012. And it's one case among millions in the court system. Are you suggesting the media is omniscient and omnipotent and should have been all over this four years ago, before Trump was even a candidate?

You have a very weird idea of how things are supposed to work.

 

Are we really witnessing CLINTON supporters pull the "he mistreated women" card?? That's hilarious!!

I must say that one good thing after the last 8 years is that being a progressive lib has become a laughing stock for that nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together will ever take anything from the left as serious.

 

why? there should be no extra protection for someone who gets naked versus someone who wears a low cut top at a golf course to get tips from drunk middle aged men... why should some women get special protection over other women? why should ugly women not get paid the same rates as attractive women? do you not support equality? do you not support women? if you were upset that one group of women was discriminated against, why are you not outraged another gets discriminated against? you know why, because you do NOT support equality, you support political power, and thats all this is about, you have NO issue with discrimination in all those other areas because you don't actually support equality, you support advantage, and its quite clear you support political advantage, which is why you're only angry because its "Trump"...

P.S. when is the last time you saw a fat overweight ugly woman working at hooterz or the countless other spinoffs of restaurants like that? you support them discriminating against ugly fat women in tight clothes? will you attempt to tell me its different also? will you tell me only pretty women can work at those places? why don't you start practicing equality, and start being equally outraged at your morals and values in ALL aspects of life, instead of selectively applying your morals and value for political power...

 

Sorry, but doing the 'stand by your man' routine while trying to capture the feminist vote does that for her. It won't sway any of the femi-nazi whackjobs that already support her just because of her vagina, but it might get even the typical neutered liberal male thinking...

Odd how the press has all this time to sift through court cases years old, but can't seem to keep up with all the scandals happen right now or even the past few months. I suppose we'll find out Hillary really was crook in 2020, when the idiots in the press finally get to it, right?

 

You should pause and wipe the spittle off your screen.

When attractiveness or gender is a bona fide part of the job, you can discriminate on that basis.

Case law has established that it is not a bona fide part of the job for waitresses, bartenders, and other service people.

Paying ugly people less is illegal, too. As it should be. It can be very hard to prove, but it is illegal.

No. I find them repugnant.

It's not different at all. In fact, there was a lawsuit against Hooters over this very thing. It revolved around whether Hooters was a restaurant (in which case it couldn't discriminate) or primarily an entertainment venue offering women in tight t-shirts (in which case, Hooters argued, they could discriminate). Hooters eventually settled that case, so it's legal argument never got fully tested.

 

How, exactly? Are women all supposed to immediately divorce their husband if he is unfaithful? Are they supposed to automatically throw their husband to the wolves in order to stand up for his mistress?

Hillary appears to love Bill. She stuck with him. That does not make her less of a feminist.

That criticism mostly betrays your own ignorance and unrealistic expectations.

Hillary has been the most thoroughly investigated candidate in history.

Trump is just now getting that treatment.

The media is not one giant monolith, with unlimited resources and faultless cross-checking. In 2012, the lawsuit against Trump's golf course would not usually have merited ANY coverage in major media. And if it did, the person covering it may or may not have had a clue, may or may not have remembered it 3 years later when Trump declared his candidacy, may or may not even still be working as a reporter, and almost certainly was not part of the paper's political team.

Watch the movie "Spotlight." Things fall through the cracks. They are not known about, or their significance is not realized. One part of the paper doesn't talk to another part. People forget things.

 

I see, because some disgruntled employees filed a lawsuit to get 'deep pocket' money somehow that makes them 'saints.' I read your link, the lawsuit was settled with no blame also the bulk of the lawsuit was about break policies....Not women.

From YOUR link.....

"The bulk of the lawsuit was settled in 2013, when golf course management, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $475,000 to employees who had complained about break policies." 'Break policies' NOT what you claim.

 

Yes, that rascal Trump sure is a bad guy.

Fortunately for him his opponent is reliably accused of considerably more than wanting to replace chubby employees (so the accusations say).

Hillary Clinton has been lying to the FBI about putting our national security at risks through her mishandling of government documents, not that she needs to worry about the FBI too much because they have been complicit in a cover up put into place by our dear president designed to stonewall an effective investigation into her behavior.

And if that weren't bad enough hacked emails divulge Mrs. Clinton was up to her considerable rear end in arming ISIS and helping to destabilize the region
running weapons to "rebel" (terrorist) groups throughout Iraq, Syria and Libya. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...llarys-arming-jihadists-including-isis-syria/

And of course all this says nothing about her very real health problems and her peddling of influence at the State Department, all for the enrichment of her
questionable family charity (and therefore herself) and getting costly fees for her husband's speaking gigs as a condition of getting the Secretary of State's ear.

Yes, Trump sure is a piece of work. Too bad Mrs.Clinton makes all of his worst qualities pale by comparison when her illegal, immoral and sociopathic behavior
is factored in.

 

1. Can't view article because they demand a sub, use better, no pay sources for thread creation. Since I can't read it, will make some assumptions.
2. The LA Times article does not present the other side, no affidavits or court transcripts from Trump's side. If I am correct in this, the story is instant dreck, typical of this OP. Would make it similar to all the "Trump Racist! 70s lawsuit" lie narratives where they fail to mention that the people turned away were not just black... but on welfare, a perfectly legitimate reason (and also credit rating) for turning tenants away from a for-profit rental property. Landlords are not obligated to lend to people who can't demonstrate enough non welfare income to PAY THE RENT. But of course the lie narrators omitted this highly necessary context in all their many lies. Rest assured there's more to this story as well.
3. Take only plaintiffs' and their lawyers' claims against ANYONE at face value? Only an abject, slobbering, drool cup of a moron would do that. I can't read the article to know whether or not there are disclaimers to this effect within, but have my hunches. Perhaps we should just do away with trials altogether and let TV lawyers decide who should pay when people are -allegedly- wronged and how much? Sound like a plan?
4. There is nothing whatsoever wrong or illegal with hiring and firing based on appearance. Be a middle aged balding male applying for a job in a Victoria's Secret, Hooters, or even an Abercrombie & Fitch... or any of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of other businesses in the country that hire for specific looks and find out just how far one gets with the OP's and LA Times line of unreason. Again, I can't read the article, so who knows what slimy rationalizations and factoids the LW LA Times applies to fool its seal-clapping, idiotic readership, but again, I have a pretty good hunch.
5. And as others point out, keep scraping that barrel bottom lefties, like you did with that scumbag Miss Universe. When the truth comes out, I bet Trump appreciates all the votes he gets in reprisal from people who hate being lied to and manipulated more than they care about who sits in the WH. Bravo!

Is OP fooling you? Is the LA Times? If so, stay away from car and insurance salesmen and never buy any investments other than a top ten mutual fund.

 

What came from it ? Who won ? This was in 2k12, so what was the result?

 

Another valid question. Because the TV lawyer branch of the Democratic Party has so thoroughly clogged our courts with frivolous, self-enriching litigation, this case may still be ongoing. Just remember the takeaway though folks, a vote for Democrats puts you on the same side as all the TV lawyer scumbags in this country. Do such bedfellows give you a warm fuzzy?

 

most Trump supporters already knew this about him, so doubt it will change their minds

 

so basically what you're saying is, you SUPPORT discrimination, you do NOT SUPPORT equality... finally a liberal is starting to learn more about themselves... now that you've taken the first step to recognize you support discrimination, why don't you support Trump practicing the SAME discrimination you practice... like I said, because you're only interested in power, and political advantage, you don't want anything to do with equality or practicing your morals and values all the time, only when you can ford them upon others, and then ignore them when it applies to YOU... do as I say, not as I do... the democrat motto...

 

So, what is the point OP?

If 2 hairy homo's can be hubby and wife Trump can fire whoever he likes.

 

What's wrong with havin some hot babes workin at the golf course? Makes guys day out more fun.

 

Now, ask me if I care.
Now, if he'd abused woman like bj Billy and tried to destroy women's lives for exposing Billy like Hillary has, I would. But, nope...nothing "D"'s are trying to destroy Trump with comes close to the Clinton legacy...nothing.

 

then don't vote for him