Supremely Flabbergasting Facepalm

The Iowa Supreme Court has managed to completely astonish me today. I'd seen a few things floating around the Interwebs about The Case of the Irresistable Worker but hadn't taken the time to read them until today and, well, wow. Color me astonished. Talk about a flabbergasting facepalm from our high court...

But first: The Iowa Supreme Court is pretty bad-ass and they've had a long history of being bad-ass which is what makes this decision so astonishing to me. In 1839- they're very first decision, right out of the gate, they ruled that a slave named Ralph became free as soon as he set foot on Iowa soil. 26 years before the end of the Civil War. They were a whopping 85 years ahead of the US Supreme Court in rejecting separate but equal schools (1868)- they were 91 years ahead of the Supremes in ruling against racial discrimination in public accomodations (1873). Iowa was the first state to let women practice law- because of the Iowa Supreme Court, we repealed our anti-misegenation law in 1851 and became the first state in the Midwest to legalize gay marriage with the Varnum Decision in 2009.

In short, the Iowa Supreme Court has traditionally and proudly found itself on the side of what's good, right and sensible more often than not. Which makes this case pretty astounding.

The Case? Basically, a Dental Assistant up in Webster County. by all accounts a good employee and had been for ten years, got fired because she was 'too irresistable' and the Dentist, her boss, feared that he might start an affair with her. By a unanimous decision, the State Supreme Court said that was AOK, because the decision was motivated by 'feelings and emotions' and a 'genuine desire to save his marriage' and not by gender.

WTF? No, seriously- read the article. And then read this one too and then say it with me: W. T. F.

Of course this Dentist is covering himself in the shroud of 'family values' and trying to hide behind the notion that he was genuinely concerned about the health of his marriage but speaking as a male who lives in this state I'm downright insulted and I feel infantilized and discriminated against because his argument, it's a load of horseshit and anyone with a lick of common sense would see that.

Basically, Mr. Pervy Dentist is saying 'I can't keep my dick in my pants, so you're fired.' If you, a grown-ass man, can't control your damn dick, then I don't even know what to say to you. If you're marriage is that unhappy you think you want to have an affair, get help. Don't blame it on your junk.

Instead, Our State Supreme Court in its wisdom has pretty much said, 'yeah, dudes can't control their dicks sometimes. They just run wild and crazy and get stuck wherever- so if there's a chance your penis could run wild, then it's OK to fire someone.'

Plus, this woman's right: this wouldn't have happened if she would have been male. Or if it would have, this case would be a lot more interesting/scandalous. It's a sad, sad day for this state when an argument that basically boils down to the lyrics of a Robert Palmer song can sway the State Supreme Court.