Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 555

Warbler needs an editor.

Nicely done.

Warbler said:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Warbler, laws protecting you at your workplace are different from laws protecting you from the government. If you routinely don’t come dressed appropriately for your job, you can get fired. If you make a public statement that potentially can make the company look bad and thus hurt sales, you can get fired.

The First Amendment gives the right to freedom of speech, association, assembly, and the press. It does not inherently protect you at your job. We do have laws (not amendments) in place to protect people from being fired based on race or gender, but that’s not this. And you would have to prove that was the only reason for the firing.

Having an opinion is one thing. Posting it in the newspaper is something else.

Well, seriously. People have this thing where one person may wonder if another can get away with something, to which the other person says “It’s a free country.” Our country is free from the oppression of tyranny in government. If you are at school and start spouting Nazi propaganda, the school can detain, suspend, or expel you. You are not protected from disciplinary action from your place of education or employment when your behavior is contrary to their guidelines.

I’m talking about behavior, not opinion. One can have whatever opinion they want, but when they share it, they open themselves to criticism. If criticism of you can cast a bad light on your employer by association, your employer is under no obligation to tolerate that.

Warbler, people have been fired from their jobs because they posted pictures of themselves drunk on Facebook. The Constitution of the United States does not protect people from that.

Matt Lauer was fired from his job because of sexual misconduct allegations. Even if what he did was not illegal, and even if (hypothetically) he held a belief system that said he was not only allowed to, but also correct in, acting that way—he is legally allowed to believe that and to say so but his employer is not required by law to employ him any further when it makes them look bad.

The legal ramifications of firing someone for being a member of the Nazi party, versus being a member of BLM, are very different. The reason is that (to my knowledge) Nazi is not a protected class. Now, being a member of a protected class does not mean you can’t be fired. It means you can’t be fired for being in that class. An employer who fires someone for being in BLM would find themselves in court arguing that they fired the person because he was in BLM, and not because he was black, versus a skilled lawyer who would be working very hard to convince the jury otherwise. A good lawyer would have a field day, and the employer would be quite vulnerable. By contrast, there is no protected class status for being a Nazi, so there is no comparable legal issue.

TV’s Frink said:

And here we go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html

President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, will plead guilty on Friday to lying to the F.B.I. about a conversation with the Russian ambassador last December.

The plea was the latest indication that Mr. Flynn was cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Flynn was scheduled to appear in federal court in Washington at 10:30 on Friday morning.

Popcorn shares are up.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The legal ramifications of firing someone for being a member of the Nazi party, versus being a member of BLM, are very different. The reason is that (to my knowledge) Nazi is not a protected class. Now, being a member of a protected class does not mean you can’t be fired. It means you can’t be fired for being in that class. An employer who fires someone for being in BLM would find themselves in court arguing that they fired the person because he was in BLM, and not because he was black, versus a skilled lawyer who would be working very hard to convince the jury otherwise. A good lawyer would have a field day, and the employer would be quite vulnerable. By contrast, there is no protected class status for being a Nazi, so there is no comparable legal issue.

There’s also the obvious fact that BLM, aside from a minority (arguable in size) of its supporters, is not inherently violent, racist, and supremacist in nature.

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The legal ramifications of firing someone for being a member of the Nazi party, versus being a member of BLM, are very different. The reason is that (to my knowledge) Nazi is not a protected class. Now, being a member of a protected class does not mean you can’t be fired. It means you can’t be fired for being in that class. An employer who fires someone for being in BLM would find themselves in court arguing that they fired the person because he was in BLM, and not because he was black, versus a skilled lawyer who would be working very hard to convince the jury otherwise. A good lawyer would have a field day, and the employer would be quite vulnerable. By contrast, there is no protected class status for being a Nazi, so there is no comparable legal issue.

There’s also the obvious fact that BLM, aside from a minority (arguable in size) of its supporters, is not inherently violent, racist, and supremacist in nature.

That could be debated. Protected class cannot.

Warbler said:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/crime/beer-delis-plexiglass-windows-council-bill-20171130.html

This is why Conservatives can’t stand liberals. Some law makers are trying to pass a law to ban plexiglass windows that protect small business owners and their employees, due to feelings. Stupid just stupid.

I read the whole story, and came away with the feeling that there is a lot more going on than just the plexiglass. While the business is complaining that their safety is at stake because it is a bad neighborhood, it seems that the lawmakers feel that this same business has been contributing to it being a bad neighborhood – not because of the plexiglass, but because they are selling booze at essentially a drive-through, without it being a restaurant. It seems they haven’t been able to find a way to clear the neighborhood of this sort of business, and the plexiglass ban is an attempt to drive them out. Of course in the process they have supplied conservatives with more fodder to scream about liberals.

Warbler said:

This is why Conservatives can’t stand liberals.

Conservatives can’t stand liberals because of the divisive tribal environment in this country which encourages blanket statements like this post.

When the main point of an ideology is to cause harm or kill others, that ideology is not the same as all others, and therefore it should not be treated the same as all others.

Warbler said:

If that is true, it is a poor way to try to get rid of unwanted businesses. Also some of these places do comply with the law that says they have to serve food and have a certain amount of seating.

The article seemed to indicate that they had been accused of flaunting this law by hurriedly setting up chairs to make it appear they were serving food.

This kind of thing crosses party lines. Conservatives often laud tough local officials who “clean up the neighborhood”. But they often do this by finding creative mechanisms for driving out certain businesses and/or people, a charge often applied to liberals. Just about anything can be spun either way.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The legal ramifications of firing someone for being a member of the Nazi party, versus being a member of BLM, are very different. The reason is that (to my knowledge) Nazi is not a protected class. Now, being a member of a protected class does not mean you can’t be fired. It means you can’t be fired for being in that class. An employer who fires someone for being in BLM would find themselves in court arguing that they fired the person because he was in BLM, and not because he was black, versus a skilled lawyer who would be working very hard to convince the jury otherwise. A good lawyer would have a field day, and the employer would be quite vulnerable. By contrast, there is no protected class status for being a Nazi, so there is no comparable legal issue.

There’s also the obvious fact that BLM, aside from a minority (arguable in size) of its supporters, is not inherently violent, racist, and supremacist in nature.

That could be debated. Protected class cannot.

BLM isn’t a protected class.