Oh, so when you quoted the poster and responded by saying "Completely incorrect", you weren't responding to that poster at all, but rather some unknown post or group of posts written by some unknown poster or group of posters somewhere else throughout the thread?
I'm curious, since you didn't explain what was "Completely incorrect", and since you weren't actually responding to the post you quoted, were we supposed to just guess at what specific portions of what specific posts by what specific posters you actually were responding to when wrote "Completely incorrect"?
I'm also curious how you don't have time to cite every case regarding the restrictions on things employers can legally fire employees for, yet you found time, and found it appropriate, to write a longpost claiming there are absolutely no restrictions on the things employers can legally fire employees for. "Even if morally reprehensible" - do you remeber writing that?
By the way, who asked you to cite every case? I didn't. All you had to do was correctly state that there are some restrictions on why an employer can fire an employee, yet you claimed the opposite. You claimed an absolute freedom from restriction on why an employer can fire an empoyee. Again, you specifically said "even if morally reprehensible". You claimed an absolute, and now that you are faced with having to admit your absolute was a false claim, you are embarassed because in your haste to impress people with your knowledge of the law you claimed that employee rights don't exist that any reasonable person knows do exist.
