Judge rules: ‘Irresistible workers’ can be fired

Let me get this right. His “bulging pants” are “not related to the fact that she was a woman?” [“Iowa high court: Bosses can fire ‘irresistible workers,’ ” page one, Dec. 22].

Iowa Judge Edward Mansfield ruled that it’s OK to fire an “irresistible” woman deemed to be a threat to the boss’s marriage. Such firings are “not unlawful discrimination … because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender.”

LOL! Sounds to me like they’re motivated by [an erection] in someone’s pants. The root of discrimination is “feelings and emotions”: sexism, racism, hatred or objectification of a member of a protected class, sexual exploitation.

At least the judge is named appropriately: mans field.

Mitzi Simmons, Seattle

Taliban-like thinking

Regarding the Iowa high court’s decision that firing the woman because she was to attractive: What’s next, the attractiveness police? Burkas?

This strikes me as a throwback to the Taliban and blaming the woman for getting raped. An all-male court made this decision. Why am I not surprised?

This sounds like the same kind of court that would demand the teaching of “creationism” in science class. Are we moving forward as a society or are we going in reverse?

Larry Benson, Enumclaw

read more