Police officer fired for having confederate flag in yard

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

they wouldn't allow her to wear a clown suit on duty either. what's the world coming to?

That has what to do with the conversation at hand? Oh, right, nothing, because you too are incapable of making a valid argument.

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a complete ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

 

[Asclepias]

well, let me rephrase that... you can say whatever you want. your employer doesn't have to tolerate it.... especially a police department (or other public agency) if what you say/do makes them look bad. just how it is..

I'd wager that even the jew ACLU will side with the cop's right to fly any flag she wants at her own house. ......

wont matter. If her department says she has to go she is gone. She doesnt have the right to force the PD to deal with fallout from her personal views.

Actually, she does. More than likely she belongs to a union (how ironic for you folks) and there will probably be a lot of arbitration and litigation as a result of this action.

she can't violate departmental rules. I doubt they'll be able to help her although they probably have to defend her.

Thank you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

well, let me rephrase that... you can say whatever you want. your employer doesn't have to tolerate it.... especially a police department (or other public agency) if what you say/do makes them look bad. just how it is..

I'd wager that even the jew ACLU will side with the cop's right to fly any flag she wants at her own house. ......

wont matter. If her department says she has to go she is gone. She doesnt have the right to force the PD to deal with fallout from her personal views.

Actually, she does. More than likely she belongs to a union (how ironic for you folks) and there will probably be a lot of arbitration and litigation as a result of this action.

she can't violate departmental rules. I doubt they'll be able to help her although they probably have to defend her.

A. What are the department rules?

B. Are those rules Constitutional?

 

[Asclepias]

they wouldn't allow her to wear a clown suit on duty either. what's the world coming to?

That has what to do with the conversation at hand? Oh, right, nothing, because you too are incapable of making a valid argument.

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

 

[jillian]

well, let me rephrase that... you can say whatever you want. your employer doesn't have to tolerate it.... especially a police department (or other public agency) if what you say/do makes them look bad. just how it is..

I'd wager that even the jew ACLU will side with the cop's right to fly any flag she wants at her own house. ......

wont matter. If her department says she has to go she is gone. She doesnt have the right to force the PD to deal with fallout from her personal views.

Actually, she does. More than likely she belongs to a union (how ironic for you folks) and there will probably be a lot of arbitration and litigation as a result of this action.

she can't violate departmental rules. I doubt they'll be able to help her although they probably have to defend her.

A. What are the department rules?

B. Are those rules Constitutional?

you saw the caselaw. read.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We know you are lying because this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment. Unions will only support you if you dont break a rule. Please have someone explain these things to you.

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit.

 

[ogibillm]

again, you do not have the right to put your employer in a bad light.

freedom of expression does not allow you to do that.

you're welcome.

That is a matter of your own opinion that it puts her employer in a bad light. Everyone out there is offended by something. Where is the line drawn?

Again, the government cannot legally deprive a person of their Constitutional rights which is exactly what is happening here.

she does not have a constitutional right to employment with the police department

She has a Constitutional right to speech and expression which the government cannot legally violate, but you already knew that too.

and the government hasn't violated her rights, but you should have already known that

Do you get paid by the word to lie or does it just come natural to you? Or perhaps you're simply incapable of making a coherentt argument. They are looking for someone as dishonest and dishonorable as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to take over the DNC. Perhaps you should submit your resume.

my god you just cant seem to understand that a constitutional right to free speech is not a constitutional right to government employment.

let me ask this - should a police officer that makes racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks off duty on social media be allowed to remain employed?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

they wouldn't allow her to wear a clown suit on duty either. what's the world coming to?

That has what to do with the conversation at hand? Oh, right, nothing, because you too are incapable of making a valid argument.

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

Are they going to fire her for wearing a clown suit at her house?

 

[Brynmr]

So tell us what hate group she supported. Should be pretty easy for you.

Confederates

You dumbass libs don't know shit, so you just make it up as you go. Moron.

confederate
:a soldier, citizen, or supporter of the Confederacy during the American Civil War

 

[jillian]

they wouldn't allow her to wear a clown suit on duty either. what's the world coming to?

That has what to do with the conversation at hand? Oh, right, nothing, because you too are incapable of making a valid argument.

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

Are they going to fire her for wearing a clown suit at her house?

does her wearing a clown suit create a circumstance that can reflect badly on her employer?

 

[Asclepias]

We know you are lying because this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment. Unions will only support you if you dont break a rule. Please have someone explain these things to you.

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit.

Obviously you didnt learn that the local PD is not the "government" for starters and also she is currently free to devote as much time to flying her flag as she would like. What you need to do in order to prove your case is point out what part of the first amendment was broken. Care to give it a try?

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

my god you just cant seem to understand that a constitutional right to free speech is not a constitutional right to government employment.

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit. If a government employer terminates your employment for exercising that expression on your own private property that is a violation. I could explain to an eight year old and they could understand this better than you.

Actually, I'm not convinced you don't understand it; you're just so heavily biased and dishonest that you don't care.

let me ask this - should a police officer that makes racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks off duty on social media be allowed to remain employed?

That's a matter of one's opinion. In my opinion, no, because a I stated earlier those would be considered direct threats towards the public. Flying a flag in one's yard that millions of other people do constitutes no such thing.

Again, not hard to understand. It just takes firing brain cells and eliminating your personal prejudice from the equation.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That has what to do with the conversation at hand? Oh, right, nothing, because you too are incapable of making a valid argument.

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

Are they going to fire her for wearing a clown suit at her house?

does her wearing a clown suit create a circumstance that can reflect badly on her employer?

Is she at a kid's birthday party?

 

[ogibillm]

We know you are lying because this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment. Unions will only support you if you dont break a rule. Please have someone explain these things to you.

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit.

and how have her rights been violated?

 

[jillian]

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

Are they going to fire her for wearing a clown suit at her house?

does her wearing a clown suit create a circumstance that can reflect badly on her employer?

Is she at a kid's birthday party?

answer my question. does her wearing a clown suit create a circumstance which could cause a problem for her employer.

read the standard. I'm not going to debate it with you. it's settled law.

 

[Brynmr]

I'll tell you what a hate group is for these stupid Liberals. Any group they don't like. This makes them more a hate group than most groups they label as 'hate groups'.

 

[Asclepias]

That is actually a great comparison. Your argument is foundationally flawed due to your lack of understanding employment laws and the 1rst amendment.

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

Are they going to fire her for wearing a clown suit at her house?

does her wearing a clown suit create a circumstance that can reflect badly on her employer?

Is she at a kid's birthday party?

Yeah you just lost any semblance of credibility with that reply.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We know you are lying because this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment. Unions will only support you if you dont break a rule. Please have someone explain these things to you.

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit.

Obviously you didnt learn that the local PD is not the "government" for starters and also she is currently free to devote as much time to flying her flag as she would like. What you need to do in order to prove your case is point out what part of the first amendment was broken. Care to give it a try?

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit. If a government employer terminates your employment for exercising that expression on your own private property that is a violation. I could explain to an eight year old and they could understand this better than you.

 

[ogibillm]

my god you just cant seem to understand that a constitutional right to free speech is not a constitutional right to government employment.

Again, and I'll put this in the most basic English I can for you to understand, the government cannot legally violate your rights. The First Amendment is a part of what we call the Bill of Rights. I learned that in elementary school. Maybe you weren't as fortunate. That amendment guarantees the right to free speech and expression which the government cannot legally prohibit. If a government employer terminates your employment for exercising that expression on your own private property that is a violation. I could explain to an eight year old and they could understand this better than you.

Actually, I'm not convinced you don't understand it; you're just so heavily biased and dishonest that you don't care.

let me ask this - should a police officer that makes racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks off duty on social media be allowed to remain employed?

That's a matter of one's opinion. In my opinion, no, because a I stated earlier those would be considered direct threats towards the public. Flying a flag in one's yard that millions of other people do constitutes no such thing.

Again, not hard to understand. It just takes firing brain cells and eliminating your personal prejudice from the equation.

you cant stay consistent. if a police officer can't say racist things publicly off duty (you invented the b.s. about 'threats') they can't fly racist symbols.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It would appear to be a great comparison to a completely ignoramus who can't grasp the situation at hand.

So why dont you think its a great comparison then? You cant grasp that this has nothing to do with the 1rst amendment.

Are they going to fire her for wearing a clown suit at her house?

does her wearing a clown suit create a circumstance that can reflect badly on her employer?

Is she at a kid's birthday party?

Yeah you just lost any semblance of credibility with that reply.

Unlike yourself who had no credibility from the moment you said "Glad the dumb bitch got fired."

Ask me a stupid question and I'm happy to give you a stupid answer.