Alt-right protestor loses job after being outed

[L.K.Eder]

arre yuo crazzy? the guy was legally excersizing his rrights, yo! he is entitled!

Free speech does NOT mean free of consequences.

Blasphemy!

 

[Papageorgio]

arre yuo crazzy? the guy was legally excersizing his rrights, yo! he is entitled!

Free speech does NOT mean free of consequences.

It's amazing how such a simple thing is so wildly misconstrued.

The racists, misogynists and white supremacists have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, and they slithered out from under their rocks in droves to vote for him. They are the lowlife bottom feeders of his base. But they have grossly miscalculated the response they'd receive.

More importantly, the Republican Party can no longer pretend that Trump isn't sympathetic to their white supremacist agenda. More and more Republicans are realizing the danger a Trump Presidency poses to the republic.

Back in Dallas when five police officers were shot by the BLM crazy, Obama gave a statement that didn't condemn the BLM, I didn't jump Obama for that nor will I jump Trump for this. I try to stay consistent.

 

[dblack]

arre yuo crazzy? the guy was legally excersizing his rrights, yo! he is entitled!

Free speech does NOT mean free of consequences.

It's amazing how such a simple thing is so wildly misconstrued.

The racists, misogynists and white supremacists have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, and they slithered out from under their rocks in droves to vote for him. They are the lowlife bottom feeders of his base. But they have grossly miscalculated the response they'd receive.

More importantly, the Republican Party can no longer pretend that Trump isn't sympathetic to their white supremacist agenda. More and more Republicans are realizing the danger a Trump Presidency poses to the republic.

Back in Dallas when five police officers were shot by the BLM crazy, Obama gave a statement that didn't condemn the BLM, I didn't jump Obama for that nor will I jump Trump for this. I try to stay consistent.

His failure to condemn the white nationalists directly wasn't the problem. It was the equivocation that got him into trouble. It's possible that all Trump was trying to say was "let's not rush to judgement until we know what really went down", but his inner salesman, and inartful speaking style, simply didn't allow him such brevity. Either way, his reaction was inescapably framed by his previous association with racists. He's either too stupid to understand that, or actually wants to see more racial violence.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

 

[Political Junky]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Anyone inciting violence, like Nazis.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Anyone inciting violence, like Nazis.

Well, inciting violence is a crime. It the person in question is doing that, they should be in jail. Their employment is moot.

But what if they're aren't doing something criminal?

 

[OldLady]

Let me know when they start outing the thugs on the other side.


I believe in fairness.

Well, if a child molester gets a beating, then we say it's wrong, but we don't rush to find the beater.

and that analogy has what to do with the OP?

I was responding to your post about fairness.

People who beat up a pedophile don't become a priority for police.

Just like exposing the antifas is not really top on our To-Do list.

People who beat up a pedophile don't become a priority for police.

It isn't?

according to whom?

Just like exposing the antifas is not really top on our To-Do list.

So you're all for giving thugs a break, because they attack people you don't like?

The Boston PD did it fairly yesterday. I think everyone they arrested were counter-protesters. They weren't about to put up with any shit from anyone and they did a good job. Of course, they only had a few dozen "Free Speech" people to protect and about 10,000-15,000 counter protesters to control. But still, it was a good model for all PD's to use, imo.

 

[Dragonlady]

arre yuo crazzy? the guy was legally excersizing his rrights, yo! he is entitled!

Free speech does NOT mean free of consequences.

It's amazing how such a simple thing is so wildly misconstrued.

The racists, misogynists and white supremacists have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, and they slithered out from under their rocks in droves to vote for him. They are the lowlife bottom feeders of his base. But they have grossly miscalculated the response they'd receive.

More importantly, the Republican Party can no longer pretend that Trump isn't sympathetic to their white supremacist agenda. More and more Republicans are realizing the danger a Trump Presidency poses to the republic.

Back in Dallas when five police officers were shot by the BLM crazy, Obama gave a statement that didn't condemn the BLM, I didn't jump Obama for that nor will I jump Trump for this. I try to stay consistent.

None of the police officers who were killed anywhere in the US were killed by members of BLM. The shooter in Dallas was an ex-marine who wanted to kill white people.

It was inevitable that anger over police killing unarmed black people would lead to blacks killing cops. It's not like the general population, blacks included, isn't armed. Viral videos of cops body slamming kids at a birthday party, shooting people on their knees execution style, and rolling up and just shooting an 11 year old with a toy gun, are very inflammatory. As we saw in Charlotte, the US has a huge race problem.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

 

[OldLady]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Interesting question. If you have a diverse work force, it could cause a problem having neo-Nazi's or KKK in their midst. Or, if the person has become known to the community as holding those views, it could become a reflection of your business, as well. Look how many of the business CEO's went scrambling from the ship as soon as Trump flubbed his statements on the violence last week. You have to protect your image with the public. So I suppose employers may have a reason. But you know what? Maybe they should go back to keeping their views more quiet.

I wonder if that's part of the reason only a few dozen folks showed up to the Free Speech rally yesterday in Boston. There are plenty of racists in Boston, I know that for sure. Either they (1) aren't joiners, (2) think the costumes are stupid or (3) don't want their faces on world-wide news. Choose any one. It sure isn't that none exist in Boston.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Interesting question. If you have a diverse work force, it could cause a problem having neo-Nazi's or KKK in their midst. Or, if the person has become known to the community as holding those views, it could become a reflection of your business, as well. Look how many of the business CEO's went scrambling from the ship as soon as Trump flubbed his statements on the violence last week. You have to protect your image with the public. So I suppose employers may have a reason.

But should they be allowed to act on that reason? Should a business with employees who are predominantly Trump supporters be allowed to fire someone who hates Trump and speaks out against him in public?

 

[Dragonlady]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Interesting question. If you have a diverse work force, it could cause a problem having neo-Nazi's or KKK in their midst. Or, if the person has become known to the community as holding those views, it could become a reflection of your business, as well. Look how many of the business CEO's went scrambling from the ship as soon as Trump flubbed his statements on the violence last week. You have to protect your image with the public. So I suppose employers may have a reason.

But should they be allowed to act on that reason? Should a business with employees who are predominantly Trump supporters be allowed to fire someone who hates Trump and speaks out against him in public?

Being critical of the President is hardly the same thing as espousing the belief that whites are a "superior race" have the rights ahead of inferiors like blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and Asians.

As a business owner, having such a person around my other employees, who may be members of these so-called "inferior" races or religions, would make them uncomfortable, or my customers. I'd fire his ass in a heartbeat.

 

[Papageorgio]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

They are allowed to fire for political beliefs, it is not a protected class. If I owned my own business and you went to a high profile, violent rally for white supremacist, I would fire you because I'm not risking my livelihood that I spent years developing and nurturing go down the tubes for crap I don't believe in. Pretty simple.

 

[Papageorgio]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Anyone inciting violence, like Nazis.

Well, inciting violence is a crime. It the person in question is doing that, they should be in jail. Their employment is moot.

But what if they're aren't doing something criminal?

Yep, if you don't like it, you have the wrong job and should leave anyway. Going to work is not a right, and political party is not a protected class. If can cause detriment to your business, then it is a fireable offense.

 

[Papageorgio]

arre yuo crazzy? the guy was legally excersizing his rrights, yo! he is entitled!

Free speech does NOT mean free of consequences.

It's amazing how such a simple thing is so wildly misconstrued.

The racists, misogynists and white supremacists have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, and they slithered out from under their rocks in droves to vote for him. They are the lowlife bottom feeders of his base. But they have grossly miscalculated the response they'd receive.

More importantly, the Republican Party can no longer pretend that Trump isn't sympathetic to their white supremacist agenda. More and more Republicans are realizing the danger a Trump Presidency poses to the republic.

Back in Dallas when five police officers were shot by the BLM crazy, Obama gave a statement that didn't condemn the BLM, I didn't jump Obama for that nor will I jump Trump for this. I try to stay consistent.

None of the police officers who were killed anywhere in the US were killed by members of BLM. The shooter in Dallas was an ex-marine who wanted to kill white people.

It was inevitable that anger over police killing unarmed black people would lead to blacks killing cops. It's not like the general population, blacks included, isn't armed. Viral videos of cops body slamming kids at a birthday party, shooting people on their knees execution style, and rolling up and just shooting an 11 year old with a toy gun, are very inflammatory. As we saw in Charlotte, the US has a huge race problem.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

He was a BLM member, he was who he was. The hate from BLM spurred his hate and caused him to act. The BLM is being sued over the officer's deaths.

We have had a race problem, for over a century. Nothing justifies killing another human.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

They are allowed to fire for political beliefs, it is not a protected class. If I owned my own business and you went to a high profile, violent rally for white supremacist, I would fire you because I'm not risking my livelihood that I spent years developing and nurturing go down the tubes for crap I don't believe in. Pretty simple.

I understand the current legal statute. I'm asking how you think it should be. Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for being a socialist, for example?

 

[Papageorgio]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Interesting question. If you have a diverse work force, it could cause a problem having neo-Nazi's or KKK in their midst. Or, if the person has become known to the community as holding those views, it could become a reflection of your business, as well. Look how many of the business CEO's went scrambling from the ship as soon as Trump flubbed his statements on the violence last week. You have to protect your image with the public. So I suppose employers may have a reason.

But should they be allowed to act on that reason? Should a business with employees who are predominantly Trump supporters be allowed to fire someone who hates Trump and speaks out against him in public?

If management believes it to be detrimental to their business, they can. The employee would get unemployment in all likelihood however, a business has a right to hire and fire who they want.

 

[Papageorgio]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Interesting question. If you have a diverse work force, it could cause a problem having neo-Nazi's or KKK in their midst. Or, if the person has become known to the community as holding those views, it could become a reflection of your business, as well. Look how many of the business CEO's went scrambling from the ship as soon as Trump flubbed his statements on the violence last week. You have to protect your image with the public. So I suppose employers may have a reason.

But should they be allowed to act on that reason? Should a business with employees who are predominantly Trump supporters be allowed to fire someone who hates Trump and speaks out against him in public?

Being critical of the President is hardly the same thing as espousing the belief that whites are a "superior race" have the rights ahead of inferiors like blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and Asians.

As a business owner, having such a person around my other employees, who may be members of these so-called "inferior" races or religions, would make them uncomfortable, or my customers. I'd fire his ass in a heartbeat.

I'd fire him too, I run a business, I do not want distractions or potential distractions. That is why Colin Kaepernick is not finding an NFL team, his politics are a distraction and makes NFL owners nervous.

 

[Papageorgio]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

They are allowed to fire for political beliefs, it is not a protected class. If I owned my own business and you went to a high profile, violent rally for white supremacist, I would fire you because I'm not risking my livelihood that I spent years developing and nurturing go down the tubes for crap I don't believe in. Pretty simple.

I understand the current legal statute. I'm asking how you think it should be. Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for being a socialist, for example?

If they believe his politics are detrimental to their business, yes.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the OP, how many people here think an employer should be "allowed" to fire someone for their political beliefs?

Interesting question. If you have a diverse work force, it could cause a problem having neo-Nazi's or KKK in their midst. Or, if the person has become known to the community as holding those views, it could become a reflection of your business, as well. Look how many of the business CEO's went scrambling from the ship as soon as Trump flubbed his statements on the violence last week. You have to protect your image with the public. So I suppose employers may have a reason.

But should they be allowed to act on that reason? Should a business with employees who are predominantly Trump supporters be allowed to fire someone who hates Trump and speaks out against him in public?

Being critical of the President is hardly the same thing as espousing the belief that whites are a "superior race" have the rights ahead of inferiors like blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and Asians.

As a business owner, having such a person around my other employees, who may be members of these so-called "inferior" races or religions, would make them uncomfortable, or my customers. I'd fire his ass in a heartbeat.

So, should an employer be allowed to fire someone for being a socialist?

 

[Dragonlady]

Free speech does NOT mean free of consequences.

It's amazing how such a simple thing is so wildly misconstrued.

The racists, misogynists and white supremacists have been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, and they slithered out from under their rocks in droves to vote for him. They are the lowlife bottom feeders of his base. But they have grossly miscalculated the response they'd receive.

More importantly, the Republican Party can no longer pretend that Trump isn't sympathetic to their white supremacist agenda. More and more Republicans are realizing the danger a Trump Presidency poses to the republic.

Back in Dallas when five police officers were shot by the BLM crazy, Obama gave a statement that didn't condemn the BLM, I didn't jump Obama for that nor will I jump Trump for this. I try to stay consistent.

None of the police officers who were killed anywhere in the US were killed by members of BLM. The shooter in Dallas was an ex-marine who wanted to kill white people.

It was inevitable that anger over police killing unarmed black people would lead to blacks killing cops. It's not like the general population, blacks included, isn't armed. Viral videos of cops body slamming kids at a birthday party, shooting people on their knees execution style, and rolling up and just shooting an 11 year old with a toy gun, are very inflammatory. As we saw in Charlotte, the US has a huge race problem.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

He was a BLM member, he was who he was. The hate from BLM spurred his hate and caused him to act. The BLM is being sued over the officer's deaths.

We have had a race problem, for over a century. Nothing justifies killing another human.

He was NOT a member of BLM.

Nowhere did I suggest these shootings were "justified". I said it wasn't surprising that this happened. The US is a heavily armed, violent nation. Violence seems to be your first response to any difficult situation.

Given the incompetence and the racist sympathies of your current President, and reading the comments here, I fear this will get much much worse before it gets better.