It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman Fired After Giving Trump's Motorcade the Finger.

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

Do we really have free expression, can we honestly call it free expression if it's okay to punish people for what they say?


If it’s the government doing it then we got a problem


If it's society doing it, we still have the same problem.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

Do we really have free expression, can we honestly call it free expression if it's okay to punish people for what they say?


It depends on where you think the freedom is derived. In this social compact, it comes from the U.S. Constitution.

If this woman gives Trump the finger for his free expressions, then her employer fires her for her free expressions...and then people (like a few posters here) want to see the employer sued for their freedom of association....

Everyone is exercising their Constitutional freedoms. It's a freedom fest that doesn't stop with her, or Trump, or her employer....we all get to have our say.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Don't call me a cretin, again.

(I've done nothing to you and said nothing to warrant that!)

Sorry about that MotherMayEye, I had you confused with someone in another thread.

Too many irons in the fire tonight. Beyond the cretin remark I stand by my other remarks.


I appreciate you apologizing.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The fear of punishment could be considered an inhibitor or an infringement of free expression.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I changed it, now address what else I said...


Bill of rights isn't considered law anymore anyway, except to save face in official statements.

That why police can search and seize your property without due process.

Thats why cops gun down an unarmed person and get away with it.

Thats why this gubment violates other nations rights like sovereignty and self determination with impunity.

Because of 'law and order' crowd that insist they know the law better than them.

Who bothers wth old bill of rights?




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

Do we really have free expression, can we honestly call it free expression if it's okay to punish people for what they say?


If it’s the government doing it then we got a problem


If it's society doing it, we still have the same problem.


I understand, but the constitution is more concerned with the inherent coercive government power



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The fear of punishment could be considered an inhibitor or an infringement of free expression.



Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state of Virginia from passing a law prohibiting an employer from directing their employees' political activities by creating policies to that end and enforcing them. Nothing prohibited this woman and Akima from creating a contractual agreement that protected her from termination based on political speech/activities.

So, the change needs to happen using a route like those.

For example, California has a law prohibiting employers from directing their employees' political activities by creating policies to that end and enforcing them.

The law is there to shape...but it's up to the individual states to do it.



edit on 11/7/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I already did: Link



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not saying that it was illegal (what was done to the woman) all I'm saying is that it was not right.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not saying that it was illegal (what was done to the woman) all I'm saying is that it was not right.


It wasn't right, IMO, too. If that was the sole reason she was fired, I completely agree.

But part of me wonders if there is more. Either way though...it's not right if she was left to believe that was the only reason she was fired.

***

ETA: OTOH, if she was given more reason and hasn't said so...then her privacy rights prevent her employer from defending itself. And that's not right either.
edit on 11/7/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: intrptr

I already did: Link


No, you didn't.


You are talking about corruption, injustice, and haven't figured in states' rights/laws.


Each of those circumstances affects individual rights as well as rights of sovereign nations. They are covered in the bill of rights and constitution. You want to expand that into modified versions of those rights over the centuries.

The constitution supersedes states rights when it comes to individual rights. Let alone rights of other sovereign nations.

Nice dodge...



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am not trying to dodge anything.

I am trying to sincerely discuss this.

You raised good points about corruption, injustice and you really haven't recognized states' rights. There are a couple of states that actually protect employee political speech.

Geez. I don't know why I am even bothering.



edit on 11/7/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

NY protects employees in this type of situation.

And, btw, don't let anyone get in your head.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
This is a simple breach of contract issue. She didn't abide by the terms of her employment contract and was terminated. Her "in your face" attitude is trouble on the hoof. I want employees to do their jobs and not disrupt the workplace or destroy the business because they have an opinion or want to prove to their pals how cool and with it they are. Politics and religion are not part of the workplace. Neither is soliciting or gambling. Girl Scout cookies and fund raisers for schools are by sign-up sheets in the break room.

If she did that to my business, she'd have 20 minutes to pack her personal belongings while being monitored to prevent theft, and would then be out the door. Her paycheck would be mailed the next day, registered mail.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I'm not entirely sure what akima LLC does within the scope of their government contract, but from their homepage it would seem that it provides IT services. And someone who hates the government that she is working for could be viewed by the company and said government as a potential threat within the scope of her employment, they could be viewed as someone who would perpetrate some sort of misconduct within the scope of their employment with potential information that they might have access to. That is a little different than say a mechanic working for a company that hires illegal immigrants and saying on social media that all employers who hire illegal immigrants should have their business licences revoked, and should be fined for hiring illegal immigrants. While both of those things could be potentially damaging to the companies reputation, one of them could potentially have access to sensitive government information, while the other does not, so there would be a difference.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: intrptr

I am not trying to dodge anything.

I am trying to sincerely discuss this.

You raised good points about corruption, injustice and you really haven't recognized states' rights. There are a couple of states that actually protect employee political speech.

Geez. I don't know why I am even bothering.



You just dodged again.

The bill of rights is about the individual. States rights is a different subject you keep switching to so you don't have to

"bother seriously discussing it".



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Politics and religion are not part of the workplace. Neither is soliciting or gambling. Girl Scout cookies and fund raisers for schools are by sign-up sheets in the break room.

Opinions and actions are two different things. Cvil discourse about politics and religion is freedom of speech, fighting over it isn't.

Solicitation for money in your workplace is frowned upon (except approved 'fund raisers' and 'girls scout cookies'), lol.

Thats the whole problem with the interpretation of individual rights, your interpretation of whats 'right'.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state of Virginia from passing a law prohibiting an employer from directing their employees' political activities by creating policies to that end and enforcing them.

Wrong again. The governing body (the company) is the same as the gubmnet in that case. They didn't have to specify it because the principle applies anywhere, in congress, at work and at home.

Getting tired of saying that.

A company cannot enforce 'policies' (love that euphemism) that violate the constitution or bill of rights.

But you defend the 'right' to violate peoples constitutional rights 'on the job' because 'corporatocracy'.. Why don't you just present your scenario instead of beating around the bush?
edit on 8-11-2017 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
A company cannot enforce 'policies' (love that euphemism) that violate the constitution or bill of rights.


A private company cannot possibly violate Constitutional Rights, seeing as how the Constitution solely protects the rights of the individual from the government.



Why don't you just present your scenario instead of beating around the bush?


Okay, I'll bite.

We are in a right-to-work state. You are my employer, I am your employee. You are the sole proprietor of a private company.

I am an excellent worker, and follow all the rules and make you tons of money. Years go by and everything is good. One day, I decide to espouse extremist views both to/in front of customers. I also am notorious for these views on my off time and in social media. I'm not breaking any laws, I'm just putting people off with my speech.

Well, it begins to lose you business, even to the point of a boycott. You ask me to knock it off. I say, "No way Mr. intrptr, I have the right to free speech. If you fire me, I'll sue." You are losing money every day due to my conduct, so much so that it begins to affect the day to day finances of the business. You may not be able to afford to stay open. I continue to be careful to break no rules, but also continue to espouse my extremist views.

What trumps what, my free speech rights, or your rights as a business owner to protect your business interest?




top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join