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: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Another liberal biting the hand that feeds them,and when they quit feeding them they whine,she is pretty ignorant as well as a classless liberal,wouldn't want her on my payroll especially going government contract work,kind of like flipping off the CEO of the company you work for,just because your not at work,you represent the company




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Because things you do on your own time can still reflect on your employer. I'm guessing you've never managed anyone.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
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'.



You are confused. This is not about 'individual rights' or her 'civil' discourse, it was about breach of contract. She violated the terms of her employment. The employer took action. She has no recourse.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So she was fired for flipping Trump the bird in her own time.

Doesn't seem like she should be fired to me.



People get fired or not hired for facebook all the time. The thing is....if you do something idiotic and the whole world finds out about it you can be fired. You dont thing child molesters dont get fired for doing what they did on their own time? Of course they do. If it affects business you damn right they will get fired. Why do you think the NFL is in it’s current mess? Because they didn’t do anything. The inmates are running the asylum there. It is estimated they have lost $200 million since they decided kneeling was cool.

Virginia is at will employment, they can fire her for pretty much any reason they want.


So you basically have no employment rights and protection.

Well that sucks.

surly she can sue them though now for unfair dismissal?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Assessor

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So she was fired for flipping Trump the bird in her own time.

Doesn't seem like she should be fired to me.



People get fired or not hired for facebook all the time. The thing is....if you do something idiotic and the whole world finds out about it you can be fired. You dont thing child molesters dont get fired for doing what they did on their own time? Of course they do. If it affects business you damn right they will get fired. Why do you think the NFL is in it’s current mess? Because they didn’t do anything. The inmates are running the asylum there. It is estimated they have lost $200 million since they decided kneeling was cool.

Virginia is at will employment, they can fire her for pretty much any reason they want.


So you basically have no employment rights and protection.

Well that sucks.

surly she can sue them though now for unfair dismissal?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


She violated the terms of her employment.

She can't violate freedom of expression in her contract. The constitution supersedes that in this case. The constitution guarantees her right even at work, because 'work' is in the confines of the uS. Thats why theres a bill of rights (rolls eyes).

She didn't flip off her boss anyway. What she did is none of his business.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Assessor

Hi Assessor, left you a message (little white envelope, upper right on your screen).



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pteridine


She violated the terms of her employment.

She can't violate freedom of expression in her contract. The constitution supersedes that in this case. The constitution guarantees her right even at work, because 'work' is in the confines of the uS. Thats why theres a bill of rights (rolls eyes).

She didn't flip off her boss anyway. What she did is none of his business.


The Constitution does not guarantee her the right to work.

In your version of the U.S., a daycare worker can make salacious comments about young children in their off-time, go to work and tell their employer about it, and the employer has no right to fire them.

That's ridiculous.

P.S. Also, she made it their business when she went to HR to tell them about it. They didn't have to know. You can't even see her face in the pic. She wanted recognition and accolades like she was getting from her FB friends -- but she got fired instead.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


The Constitution does not guarantee her the right to work.

Thats different. Nice try.
edit on 10-11-2017 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye


The Constitution does not guarantee her the right to work.

Thats different. Nice try.


How is it different?

The Constitution guarantees that she won't be imprisoned, denied government benefits, audited by the IRS, or prohibited & punished by the government in any other way for expressing herself. And if she was I would be absolutely outraged for her.

However, it doesn't guarantee private employers can't fire her for expressing herself.

Please show me where you think that is written.




edit on 11/10/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


How is it different?

I already gave an example of my experience on the job, waaay back.

The companies Employment Division found in my favor when a boss tried to fire me for hanging banners in the worksplace, because freedom of speech (back then) meant everywhere, even at work.

Now its different, meaning has been changed.

Not that you care one bit.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye


How is it different?

I already gave an example of my experience on the job, waaay back.

The companies Employment Division found in my favor when a boss tried to fire me for hanging banners in the worksplace, because freedom of speech (back then) meant everywhere, even at work.

Now its different, meaning has been changed.

Not that you care one bit.


Did you work for the government? If not, then that was their company policy because it sure isn't the actual law.

ETA: And come to think of it, I once had a coworker who was reprimanded for hanging up political signage in her work space....well, she was told to take it down and she did.


edit on 11/10/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye


How is it different?

I already gave an example of my experience on the job, waaay back.

The companies Employment Division found in my favor when a boss tried to fire me for hanging banners in the worksplace, because freedom of speech (back then) meant everywhere, even at work.

Now its different, meaning has been changed.

Not that you care one bit.


Did you work for the government? If not, then that was that their company policy because it sure isn't the actual law.


Yah, like I said, not anymore. And no, it was a private corporation.

You don't even want to hear any different. You just know what you know and thats all that you know. That attitude is part of the current problem, you'd rather cover up the past than discover it.

intrptr out
edit on 10-11-2017 by intrptr because: change



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye


How is it different?

I already gave an example of my experience on the job, waaay back.

The companies Employment Division found in my favor when a boss tried to fire me for hanging banners in the worksplace, because freedom of speech (back then) meant everywhere, even at work.

Now its different, meaning has been changed.

Not that you care one bit.


Did you work for the government? If not, then that was that their company policy because it sure isn't the actual law.


Yah, like I said, not anymore. And no, it was a private corporation.

You don't even want to hear any different. You just know what you know and thats all that you know. That attitude is part of the current problem, you are trying to cover up the past too.

intrptr out



I have heard your POV. You are just wrong. It's nice when private employers take it upon themselves to try to respect an employee's freedom of expression, when reasonable, but they are not legally obligated to by the federal government. It would have to be up to the States to make laws to that effect.

And those laws would likely be challenged (and overturned) on a federal level for being unconstitutional because it would infringe on employers' freedom of association rights PLUS the Constitution does not guarantee the right to work for a private employer.



edit on 11/10/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Blah, blah. Look, the only time your argument wild be valid is if Trump came to her place of business and she flipped him off while at work.

Otherwise, meh.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And the only time your argument would be valid is if the Mandela Effect was real and you returned to your *cough* original timeline where private employers were legally obligated to uphold their employees' First Amendment rights or face prosecution.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: intrptr

And the only time your argument would be valid is if the Mandela Effect was real and you returned to your *cough* original timeline where private employers were legally obligated to uphold their employees' First Amendment rights or face prosecution.


The constitution doesn't specify inside or outside any place or building or home or field or anyplace, it just says

"Freedom of Speech".



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: intrptr

And the only time your argument would be valid is if the Mandela Effect was real and you returned to your *cough* original timeline where private employers were legally obligated to uphold their employees' First Amendment rights or face prosecution.


The constitution doesn't specify inside or outside any place or building or home or field or anyplace, it just says

"Freedom of Speech".




LOL!

In your timeline, the drafters were men of very few words.

You Mandela Effect people are so funny with your lousy recollections, understandings, and vivid imaginations!

Funny, funny stuff, Intrptr!



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


In your timeline, the drafters were men of very few words.

My timeline? The framers understood it, wrote it plain as day, so you couldn't mince meaning.

My employer fired my boss by the way, for trying to fire me for my opinion.

Thats what freedom of speech used to mean.

Mandela effect is BS, by the way. 2nd time you used it as argument.

So sad, you discount the constitution but adopt some Bs made up on the internet.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MotherMayEye


In your timeline, the drafters were men of very few words.

My timeline? The framers understood it, wrote it plain as day, so you couldn't mince meaning.

My employer fired my boss by the way, for trying to fire me for my opinion.

Thats what freedom of speech used to mean.

Mandela effect is BS, by the way. 2nd time you used it as argument.

So sad, you discount the constitution but adopt some Bs made up on the internet.



Mmmhmmm.

Anyway, I took a lookie, this morning, to see if I could find any historical case precedent that would support your timeline understanding *snort* of the U.S. Constitution and the first Amendment. I couldn't...not even before the internet.

It didn't used to mean that. Ever.

Sorry, you must have mistaken your company's internal policy with the U.S. Constitution.

=(

You aren't the first to misunderstand the protections of the U.S. Constitution and you won't be the last. But the fact is, if a daycare worker says they are sexually interested in little kids and then tells their boss they said that, they can and should be fired. The drafters weren't as dumb & reckless as you wish they were.


***

ETA: And, btw, speech is not the only freedom protected from the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. We are free to associate or not associate with people and groups. Freedom of Association is also guaranteed.

It seems in your mind/timeline that Speech is the only freedom there is. But it's not. By prohibiting private employers from firing their employees for saying things they don't agree with, you are suggesting the drafters didn't really mean for the freedom of association to be protected.

You need to move on. You are just wrong about this.



edit on 11/10/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join