Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, as most employers, not just police departments, have policies that can allow for termination for any statements that bring discredit or dishonor, or even embarrassment to the company. A few months ago, a Security Guard was fired for failing to assist a Police Officer who was struggling with a suspect. The problem there is that the Security Guard isn’t required to arrest, or assist in an arrest of anyone. By law, they are trained and expected to Observe and Report.
Yet, this is acceptable, teaching her a lesson to assist and respect Police. Employees who make derrogatory comments about police are regularly fired. People who refuse to allow police to dine in a resturant are fired, and the company rushes out to make a statement disavowing the comment and announcing proudly that the person was fired.
They brought discredit, disgrace to their companies, and paid the price. People on line who say that cops should die are investigated for making threats against the police. They are held accountable for their comments, and it is considered a Law Enforcement failure that the shooter in Florida was not stopped despite threats he made and the fact that Law Enforcement knew about them.
But when a cop is held to the same standard, months later, when it would have taken at most hours for anyone else to feel the wrath, that is a total violation of the First Amendment. Cops you see, are supposed to be above the law because they are cops.
Pfui. I’m glad this idiot was fired. What I wonder is how he managed to become a cop in the first place. How many times did he allow his idiotic personal views to interfere with his work? How many times did he stretch the truth to take care of someone who deserved it in his opinion?
How is having an opinion interfering with your work?
The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.
What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?
Haha...moving the goalposts again huh?
This thread isn’t about the polices of government and or private sector employers....this is about whether or not you agree with employers and or government in this case steering/manipulating the speech and or behavior of employees while on their own time.
Only a statist would agree that employers and or government should be afforded that right.
You are trying so hard and failing so badly I almost feel sorry for you.
Having a job is not a right, it is an arrangement between the employee and the employer (not matter who the employer is). Part of that arrangement often includes rules on what is unacceptable behavior. When you accept a job offer you are voluntarily agreeing to those terms, nobody is forcing you to take the job. Companies have all sorts of rules that affect actions on their own time. I friend of my drove for Pepsi for years, they would be fired if caught buying coke products, even off duty. I knew a fireman 30 years ago that was not allowed to smoke even on their off time, doing so was grounds for dismissal. Both people agreed to these terms as part of their employment.
When I was in the Marines I could not bad mouth the CIC or members of my chain of command without facing discipline.
I think the problem here is that working as a fry cook at Wendy's like you do, you have not really encountered these sorts of rules as most fast food places do not have them.
Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.
The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.
From government retaliation... not employer retaliation.
This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.
In short, he made the PD look like a bunch of racist douche-noodles.
FIRED!
More of the same...right Joe?
Nuggas can talk all they shit they want about Whites, even go as far as fabricate lies and embellish truths....BUT as soon as a White points out simple FACTS such as “Blacks tend to be more criminal minded” or “Blacks tend to suck the .gov tit more than other groups” you White hating, truth defying filthy fucks shit your pants. Weird huh?
Kill whitey.
No one says you have to be a police officer. That's voluntary. He voluntarily signed away some of his rights for money. It's the same as anyone being fired for trashing their employer in public or being rude to customers. Why are you having trouble with all this? Look at it this way: A police force is like a company that sells public safety. They can't have an employee sabotaging their product or hurting the bottom line.Exactly, especially If you deal with the public. It has to be that way because you are acting as a representative of a company. This does not end when you clock out either.The separation of church and state is one issue and free speech is another. This is not a first amendment issue. In this case an officer violated his employment contract according to his employer by whatever due process that exists. He has legal standing to sue but the courts usually find for employers.Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion, so what does that have to do with a school locally funded from teaching religion? The ACLU takes these cases to court for constitutional violations because they don't restrict it to just Congress. The intent was for any part of government violating your rights.
Years ago there was a little town outside of the city, and actually in another county. People from the city began to move into Medina, Ohio in droves and it grew quite quickly. In their school hung a picture of Jesus Christ. When the city people invaded this community, some leftist called the ACLU to have the picture removed. It hung there for generations. The school was forced to take that picture down. Congress had nothing to do with it.
No matter how you slice it or dice it, this officers rights were violated.
I see. So what you are saying is that we have constitutional protections of free speech unless it's contracted out?
If the government can violate your constitutional rights simply by putting it in contract, then what's the point of having rights in the first place if they can simply be removed?
You sound like a regarded parrot....follow me here, nobody is debating the employee/employer contract agreement which may or may not exist. Listen closely now....the issue here is whether or not you agree with such control.
This isn’t complicated....Let’s try this one more time....dumbed way down.
CONTRACT AGREEMENT ASIDE.......Do you think employers and or government agencies should be afforded the right to control the speech and or behavior of employees while on their own time?
PLEASE NOTE...this is a yes or no question.
Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.
The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.
From government retaliation... not employer retaliation.
This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.
In short, he made the PD look like a bunch of racist douche-noodles.
FIRED!
More of the same...right Joe?
Nuggas can talk all they shit they want about Whites, even go as far as fabricate lies and embellish truths....BUT as soon as a White points out simple FACTS such as “Blacks tend to be more criminal minded” or “Blacks tend to suck the .gov tit more than other groups” you White hating, truth defying filthy fucks shit your pants. Weird huh?
Kill whitey.
Bring it beaner....PLEASE.
How is having an opinion interfering with your work?
The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.
What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?
When you agree to work for the government (at any level) they become your employer and have every right and power as any other employer. When you accept the job you are voluntarily agreeing to their rules.
That is very different than the government fining a private citizen that does not work for them.
When I was a Marine they could have put in the the brig for the act of committing adultery, but they cannot do that to a random private citizen.
You sound like a regarded parrot....follow me here, nobody is debating the employee/employer contract agreement which may or may not exist. Listen closely now....the issue here is whether or not you agree with such control.
This isn’t complicated....Let’s try this one more time....dumbed way down.
CONTRACT AGREEMENT ASIDE.......Do you think employers and or government agencies should be afforded the right to control the speech and or behavior of employees while on their own time?
PLEASE NOTE...this is a yes or no question.
Yes I do think that employers should be afforded the right to control the speech and or behavior of employees while on their own time. If you do not like the control, find a different job. Nobody is forcing anyone to work anywhere.
I think the employer should be afforded the right to do what they think is best for their business.
You sound like a regarded parrot....follow me here, nobody is debating the employee/employer contract agreement which may or may not exist. Listen closely now....the issue here is whether or not you agree with such control.
This isn’t complicated....Let’s try this one more time....dumbed way down.
CONTRACT AGREEMENT ASIDE.......Do you think employers and or government agencies should be afforded the right to control the speech and or behavior of employees while on their own time?
PLEASE NOTE...this is a yes or no question.
Yes I do think that employers should be afforded the right to control the speech and or behavior of employees while on their own time. If you do not like the control, find a different job. Nobody is forcing anyone to work anywhere.
I think the employer should be afforded the right to do what they think is best for their business.
You filthy statist motherfucker you.
How is having an opinion interfering with your work?
The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.
What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?
When you agree to work for the government (at any level) they become your employer and have every right and power as any other employer. When you accept the job you are voluntarily agreeing to their rules.
That is very different than the government fining a private citizen that does not work for them.
When I was a Marine they could have put in the the brig for the act of committing adultery, but they cannot do that to a random private citizen.
That's because you don't have a constitutional right to commit adultery.
There is no difference between the government fining me for my opinion and firing this guy for having his. They are both penalties by the government for you exercising your free speech rights.
No, as most employers, not just police departments, have policies that can allow for termination for any statements that bring discredit or dishonor, or even embarrassment to the company. A few months ago, a Security Guard was fired for failing to assist a Police Officer who was struggling with a suspect. The problem there is that the Security Guard isn’t required to arrest, or assist in an arrest of anyone. By law, they are trained and expected to Observe and Report.
Yet, this is acceptable, teaching her a lesson to assist and respect Police. Employees who make derrogatory comments about police are regularly fired. People who refuse to allow police to dine in a resturant are fired, and the company rushes out to make a statement disavowing the comment and announcing proudly that the person was fired.
They brought discredit, disgrace to their companies, and paid the price. People on line who say that cops should die are investigated for making threats against the police. They are held accountable for their comments, and it is considered a Law Enforcement failure that the shooter in Florida was not stopped despite threats he made and the fact that Law Enforcement knew about them.
But when a cop is held to the same standard, months later, when it would have taken at most hours for anyone else to feel the wrath, that is a total violation of the First Amendment. Cops you see, are supposed to be above the law because they are cops.
Pfui. I’m glad this idiot was fired. What I wonder is how he managed to become a cop in the first place. How many times did he allow his idiotic personal views to interfere with his work? How many times did he stretch the truth to take care of someone who deserved it in his opinion?
How is having an opinion interfering with your work?
The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.
What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?
How is having an opinion interfering with your work?
The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.
What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?
When you agree to work for the government (at any level) they become your employer and have every right and power as any other employer. When you accept the job you are voluntarily agreeing to their rules.
That is very different than the government fining a private citizen that does not work for them.
When I was a Marine they could have put in the the brig for the act of committing adultery, but they cannot do that to a random private citizen.
That's because you don't have a constitutional right to commit adultery.
There is no difference between the government fining me for my opinion and firing this guy for having his. They are both penalties by the government for you exercising your free speech rights.
There is a very big difference. In one case the person involved has agreed to abide by a set of rules in exchange for a paycheck, in the other case no such agreement was made.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The dynamic of an executed agreement between employers and employees should not change the opinion of the agreement for those not party to said agreement.
The very fact that you statists agree that employers should have such control over their employees is fucking mind-blowing.
The majority of potential employees are desperate, many will agree to almost anything to gain employment as they know if they don’t the next guy in line will.
It’s pretty fucked that you statists would support such a mandate be part of an employees contract agreement for employment.
This philosophy goes entirely against your normal LefTarded pro-employee position on most matters. You twisted wacks are all over the fucking place. You don’t know where you stand from subject to subject.
The dynamic of an executed agreement between employers and employees should not change the opinion of the agreement for those not party to said agreement.
Those not a party to the agreement have nothing to worry about, as they cannot be fired as they are not employed under the agreement.
The very fact that you statists agree that employers should have such control over their employees is fucking mind-blowing.
Thinking that a private employer should be allowed to do something is the very opposite of being a statist. Damn, are you really this dumb?
The majority of potential employees are desperate, many will agree to almost anything to gain employment as they know if they don’t the next guy in line will.
We currently have more open jobs than people to fill them.
It’s pretty fucked that you statists would support such a mandate be part of an employees contract agreement for employment.
I fully support an employers liberty and freedom to run their business anyway they see it, that is part of being a libertarian.
This philosophy goes entirely against your normal LefTarded pro-employee position on most matters. You twisted wacks are all over the fucking place. You don’t know where you stand from subject to subject.
You are a 1000 miles left of me, first you agree with the concept that the government knows what is good for us better than we do and now you want the freedom to run their companies as they see fit taken away from people.
you are sounding more and more like a communist with every post.
The dynamic of an executed agreement between employers and employees should not change the opinion of the agreement for those not party to said agreement.
Those not a party to the agreement have nothing to worry about, as they cannot be fired as they are not employed under the agreement.
The very fact that you statists agree that employers should have such control over their employees is fucking mind-blowing.
Thinking that a private employer should be allowed to do something is the very opposite of being a statist. Damn, are you really this dumb?
The majority of potential employees are desperate, many will agree to almost anything to gain employment as they know if they don’t the next guy in line will.
We currently have more open jobs than people to fill them.
It’s pretty fucked that you statists would support such a mandate be part of an employees contract agreement for employment.
I fully support an employers liberty and freedom to run their business anyway they see it, that is part of being a libertarian.
This philosophy goes entirely against your normal LefTarded pro-employee position on most matters. You twisted wacks are all over the fucking place. You don’t know where you stand from subject to subject.
You are a 1000 miles left of me, first you agree with the concept that the government knows what is good for us better than we do and now you want the freedom to run their companies as they see fit taken away from people.
you are sounding more and more like a communist with every post.
WOW...you are all spun up and lost.
Again, this thread is about a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE and the control of his speech and behavior by the GOVERNMENT while on his own time and while out of uniform. Come on....Try harder statist.
If the government as an employer could not dismiss employees for the same reason that the private sector does, that would be giving more protections to the government employees than the private ones, thus violating the equal protection clause.
No, as most employers, not just police departments, have policies that can allow for termination for any statements that bring discredit or dishonor, or even embarrassment to the company. A few months ago, a Security Guard was fired for failing to assist a Police Officer who was struggling with a suspect. The problem there is that the Security Guard isn’t required to arrest, or assist in an arrest of anyone. By law, they are trained and expected to Observe and Report.
Yet, this is acceptable, teaching her a lesson to assist and respect Police. Employees who make derrogatory comments about police are regularly fired. People who refuse to allow police to dine in a resturant are fired, and the company rushes out to make a statement disavowing the comment and announcing proudly that the person was fired.
They brought discredit, disgrace to their companies, and paid the price. People on line who say that cops should die are investigated for making threats against the police. They are held accountable for their comments, and it is considered a Law Enforcement failure that the shooter in Florida was not stopped despite threats he made and the fact that Law Enforcement knew about them.
But when a cop is held to the same standard, months later, when it would have taken at most hours for anyone else to feel the wrath, that is a total violation of the First Amendment. Cops you see, are supposed to be above the law because they are cops.
Pfui. I’m glad this idiot was fired. What I wonder is how he managed to become a cop in the first place. How many times did he allow his idiotic personal views to interfere with his work? How many times did he stretch the truth to take care of someone who deserved it in his opinion?
How is having an opinion interfering with your work?
The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.
What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?
He wasn’t fined, he was fired. As is common practice all over. You don’t seem to have a problem with private citizens being penalized for exercising their first amendment rights, but a Government employee should be exempt. Why? What about a Government Employee gives them greater rights than the average citizen.
Can You Be Fired for Hate Speech? Doesn’t the First Amendment Protect Speech?
People are not guaranteed employment. Thankfully we have not reached that level of Socialist Utopia. They may have certain protections because of Union Contracts, or legal authority, but those protections have limits as well. Obviously the Department felt that his statements, and probably the interview he went through demonstrated that he could not be trusted to carry out his duties. Rather than celebrating this rare instance of the Department holding someone accountable for their actions, you decry and denounce it. No surprise. I would argue that as Police are given greater authority under law, they must be held to a higher, not lower, standard. You obviously think they should be held to a lower standard than the citizens they are empowered over.
