Woman Fired After Giving Trump's Motorcade the Finger.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

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

Next will come the argument because corporations "are people too"?

Lol, thats one way they supplant the constitution. Okay I'll bite, if corporations "are people too" then they should pay the same tax as workers.

Edit:

One day, I decide to espouse extremist views both to/in front of customers.

Tilt. Your scenario focuses on a disruption of the work place. Civil discourse about politics and religion occur all the time. When people stick their noses in that and disallow it, then its they that violate the constitution.

Woman Fired For Flipping Off Trump’s Motorcade Receives 453,673 Job Offers

Juli Briskman, the 50-year-old mother of two who cycled her way into America’s heart, won’t be out of work for long

extranewsfeed.com...

LOL Good to see the best examples of America stepping up to make a statement.

K~

a reply to: intrptr

if corporations "are people too" then they should pay the same tax as workers.

Or better still when found guilty of crimes, how about some jail time instead of a minor fine.

K~

originally posted by: aethertek
Woman Fired For Flipping Off Trump’s Motorcade Receives 453,673 Job Offers

Juli Briskman, the 50-year-old mother of two who cycled her way into America’s heart, won’t be out of work for long

extranewsfeed.com...

LOL Good to see the best examples of America stepping up to make a statement.

K~

lol what? by being an idiot? okay, great logic there.

a reply to: aethertek

Or better still when found guilty of crimes, how about some jail time instead of a minor fine.

Agreed. Or pay tarriffs (import duties) like people too. Constitutional guarantees gone missing in the current coporatocracy.

Thanks for the info about job offers she has received. My kind of gal.

a reply to: intrptr

I agree. They should pay the same tax. The problem is that they can effectively loophole their way out of taxes. The answer is to raise their rates without removing the loopholes (deductions and such). Do you know why? Government uses those to pick their pet corporations and businesses and curry favor for money.

That's why there is so much resistance to a single flat percentage rate for every money-making entity out there - person and business. Government can't use that to curry favor and pick winners and losers and be lobbied for advantage.

originally posted by: intrptr
Lol, thats one way they supplant the constitution. Okay I'll bite, if corporations "are people too" then they should pay the same tax as workers.

You'll find no argument from me that corporate personhood should be ended.

That still doesn't change the simple fact that a corporation =/= the government.

Tilt. Your scenario focuses on a disruption of the work place. Civil discourse about politics and religion occur all the time. When people stick their noses in that and disallow it, then its they that violate the constitution.

I never said in my scenario that I was disrupting the workplace. I was just civilly discussing my extremist views, but otherwise performing my job perfectly. Customers were objecting solely to my views, not the way that I was expressing them. If the customer asks me to stop discussing it, I do immediately without issue. They can't "unhear" what I've said though...

So what's it gonna be boss, Fire me or respect my freedom of speech and lose your hat?

a reply to: ketsuko

The problem is that they can effectively loophole their way out of taxes.

I would say "Lobby" (bribe) their way out, 'loophole' is a euphemistic term for mass consumption.

Like "Intervention" instead of Invasion.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

That still doesn't change the simple fact that a corporation =/= the government.

Thats subjective. The founding fathers understood micro vs. macrocosm. Thats evident in the slogan "United we Stand" applicable to both the overall Union of States as well as the family "Unit".

The Bill of rights applies to both ends of that spectrum, and everywhere in between, goes without saying.

But that unspoken clause is nowadays lawyers grounds for exclusion.

What, huh, corporations are people too when it suits them, and excluded when it suits them too.

a reply to: intrptr

What a joke right, we make China a favored trading partner allowing their cheap slave labor to gut our manufacturing economy & at the time spending BILLIONs of our tax dollars developing weapon systems to defend us from China.

K~

Can't really blame the company. I think most other companies would do the same. You are a business - why would you risk your business for one person who puts this sort of thing on social media? She has the right to do what she did. They have the right to remove her from their employment, to avoid social issues that would arise from it.

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I'm not saying he didn't deserve to get flipped off.. but, what she did was simply stupid.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: intrptr

What a joke right, we make China a favored trading partner allowing their cheap slave labor to gut our manufacturing economy & at the time spending BILLIONs of our tax dollars developing weapon systems to defend us from China.

K~

Not only, nowadays, instead of hiring US citizens, they import that same cheap labor on 'temporary' visas. I know, I live in Silicon Valley.

The 'defense' dollars are to dominate the world, not defend US shores.

a reply to: intrptr

The 'defense' dollars are to dominate the world, not defend US shores.

Spice has to flow.

K~

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: intrptr

The 'defense' dollars are to dominate the world, not defend US shores.

Spice has to flow.

K~

If that was a reference to Dune...

Nice. Baron Harkonnen: "He who controls the spice controls the Universe."

Frank Herbert Worte Dune patterned after his experiences in the ME. The 'spice' was opium. The history of that (including the British exploiting the Chinese and subsequent Opium wars, wasn't lost on him.) is also the history today.

Opium production is thru the roof since US occupation of Afghanistan. Three hundred thousand Overdose deaths in the uS since 2000 alone.

The Spice must flow...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cynicalheathen

That still doesn't change the simple fact that a corporation =/= the government.

Thats subjective. The founding fathers understood micro vs. macrocosm. Thats evident in the slogan "United we Stand" applicable to both the overall Union of States as well as the family "Unit".

The Bill of rights applies to both ends of that spectrum, and everywhere in between, goes without saying.

Okay, last time I'm going to attempt to make this point.

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble, much like the Constitution itself. For some reason people always forget to read it along with the Amendments themselves.

Here's the text and an analysis of the text that lays it out as if for a five year old.

An excerpt of the analysis:

Insofar as the federal government is the only entity with access to the powers of the Constitution, the only entity that might able to “misconstrue or abuse” the newly-granted powers of the Constitution would be the federal government.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

As a juristic "person", ( which I don't agree with ), a corporation is able to seek the protections of the Bill of Rights, but unless they are acting as an agent of the government, are not bound by the restrictions of it.

The Founders laid it out in black and white, and explained their intent pretty clearly.

Also, you still haven't answered the question posed in the scenario I gave.

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?

How far do you carry that? What limits should there be on speech? I'm interested in knowing how far you think it should go? Threats OK? Lying and causing financial harm to someone OK? Saying things you know could cause your employer financial harm, is that OK? If so, why? Is there any argument for a civil society, at all? Does an innocent recipient of harm caused by anothers speech powerless against it, or should they be?

a reply to: Blaine91555

As long as a persons free expression does not directly impact or infringe on another persons rights, then they should be free to do so.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

As long as a persons free expression does not directly impact or infringe on another persons rights, then they should be free to do so.

I waved my Willy at the queen once, she was on the tv.

That counts?

Warmest

Lags

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

As long as a persons free expression does not directly impact or infringe on another persons rights, then they should be free to do so.

I waved my Willy at the queen once, she was on the tv.

That counts?

Warmest

Lags

Did Freddy Mercury wave his back?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

As long as a persons free expression does not directly impact or infringe on another persons rights, then they should be free to do so.

I waved my Willy at the queen once, she was on the tv.

That counts?

Warmest

Lags

Did Freddy Mercury wave his back?

He didn’t wave his back... only his Willy...