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: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Just gonna leave a few things here:


First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I only see that, as written, the First Amendment applies to Congress. It's pretty clear.

Later comes the 14th Amendment.


Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The 14th clearly extends the protections of the Bill of Rights beyond Congress and makes the states incorporate the rights protected by the Constitution into their own law.

When people are charged for deprivation of civil rights, they are usually charged via 42 U.S.C. 1983.


42 U.S.C. 1983

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.


"Under color of law... of any State..." makes it pretty clear that the statute used to prosecute violations of civil rights ONLY applies to statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, or usage enforced by STATES, not private entities.

Nowhere in these laws do I read that private citizens, employers, or corporations have to abide by the protections set forth in the Bill of Rights. It is solely a restriction placed upon the government or citizens/entities acting as its agent.

edit on 11-10-2017 by cynicalheathen because: Spelling

edit on 11-10-2017 by cynicalheathen because: tag fixes




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen



I'd like to think you have cleared this all up for intrptr. But, we'll see. S/He may still just see the words "Freedom of Speech" and nothing else.

...or s/he may think all those other words were invented after the internet.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:10 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".



In which case, of your take on this was correct, an employee can flip off their boss at work and not be fired because: freedom of speech.. yet we all know that doesn't work this way.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen


I only see that, as written, the First Amendment applies to Congress. It's pretty clear.

As mud to you. These rights are for the people, everywhere in America.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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".



In which case, of your take on this was correct, an employee can flip off their boss at work and not be fired because: freedom of speech.. yet we all know that doesn't work this way.

She didn't flip her boss off, got nothing to do with it. Although you would certainly agree that she has the right to do that if she wants.

Nobody is going to arrest her.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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".



In which case, of your take on this was correct, an employee can flip off their boss at work and not be fired because: freedom of speech.. yet we all know that doesn't work this way.

She didn't flip her boss off, got nothing to do with it. Although you would certainly agree that she has the right to do that if she wants.

Nobody is going to arrest her.





She wasn't arrested for flipping off Trump, either. She was fired. She had the right to flip the bird and strut around like a pigeon with an itchy ass all she wished, just as her employer had the right to fire her for it.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


She wasn't arrested for flipping off Trump, either. She was fired.


Thats a violation of the first amendment.

Edit: She wasn't even at work. But I get the whole political agenda stab in the back violation of her right to express herself. For...


...she was fired from her job at a company that does work with the government.

edit on 10-11-2017 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cynicalheathen


I only see that, as written, the First Amendment applies to Congress. It's pretty clear.

As mud to you. These rights are for the people, everywhere in America.


I brought facts to the discussion. I've laid out my argument and reasoning. So much so and so plainly that I will not revisit the points made in this thread.

Do you care to try and educate me on why my understanding of Rights and the Constitution is clear "as mud" in your opinion?



Thats a violation of the first amendment.


Explain how that is a violation, in detail please.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I just did.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I just did.


So any contractor who does work for the government has to abide by the same restrictions as Congress? Can you point to the law or court decision that explains that?

Doing work for =/= is an agent of the government



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I just did.


So any contractor who does work for the government has to abide by the same restrictions as Congress? Can you point to the law or court decision that explains that?

Doing work for =/= is an agent of the government


The Bill of rights was written for the people to protect them from being denied, among other things, the freedom of expression.

Its that simple.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Her status as an employee for a government contractor is meaningless. The government didn't fire her, her privately owned company did. www.americanbar.org... unless Virginia has some of the most strict employee protection laws in the country (they don't), the woman is an idiot who went too far and lost her job with zero recourse on her part aside from doing nothing about the firing... and liking it.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

She'll sue, and win.

Punishing her for expressing herself wasn't warranted.

She wasn't even at work.

Edit: Now that I think about it, in the corporatocracy, the corporations rule...

Don't ever let me hear about the corporations taking over the gubment anymore, they already have. Case in point...

edit on 10-11-2017 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I just did.


So any contractor who does work for the government has to abide by the same restrictions as Congress? Can you point to the law or court decision that explains that?

Doing work for =/= is an agent of the government


The Bill of rights was written for the people to protect them from being denied, among other things, the freedom of expression.

Its that simple.


The freedom of association is also protected under the first amendment.

It's that simple.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I just did.


So any contractor who does work for the government has to abide by the same restrictions as Congress? Can you point to the law or court decision that explains that?

Doing work for =/= is an agent of the government


The Bill of rights was written for the people to protect them from being denied, among other things, the freedom of expression.

Its that simple.


The Bill of Rights was written for the government, as a list of things the government is prohibited from doing. Individuals have rights, government has the privileges that We The People give it.

The only restrictions on rights are the equal and inalienable rights of others.

The employee had the right to flip the bird to the president's motorcade. The employer had the right to fire the employee.

You have no right to continued employment without a written contract or employment laws. To say otherwise is saying that you, the employee, have more rights than the employer.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: burdman30ott6

She'll sue, and win.

Punishing her for expressing herself wasn't warranted.

She wasn't even at work.

Edit: Now that I think about it, in the corporatocracy, the corporations rule...

Don't ever let me hear about the corporations taking over the gubment anymore, they already have. Case in point...


She won't sue. No attorney would take her case because she has no cause of action.

D'uh.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I really don't get those who are ok with an employer acting like this.
Would you be ok if an employer sacked someone because they have a same sex of TG partner? Or were supposed to be gay but were spotted on a hetero date?
Were the wrong religion? Or none at all?
Voted republican when your boss wanted you to vote Democrat?
Hang out with bikers on the weekend? Or hang out with the wrong club?

None of these things affect the business, and nor does flicking the v's at a political figure when you are in your own time.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I really don't get those who are ok with an employer acting like this.
Would you be ok if an employer sacked someone because they have a same sex of TG partner? Or were supposed to be gay but were spotted on a hetero date?
Were the wrong religion? Or none at all?
Voted republican when your boss wanted you to vote Democrat?
Hang out with bikers on the weekend? Or hang out with the wrong club?


Obviously not.

Discrimination based on race, children, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information are all protected under EEOC laws already.

How does your boss know how you vote unless you tell them? Keep your mouth shut and you'll be fine. Use common sense.

Depends on what the biker club does. If they participate in criminal activity, your employer likely has policies in place against that.

By wrong club, it depends on what you mean. What employer do you know would be happy to know their employee was openly a member of the KKK?



None of these things affect the business, and nor does flicking the v's at a political figure when you are in your own time.


Absolutely it can affect business. How many times in the last few years have you heard of people boycotting businesses for something an employee said or did?

It's fine and dandy to express yourself, but be mindful of doing so on a platform that can connect you to your source of livelihood.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I really don't get those who are ok with an employer acting like this.
Would you be ok if an employer sacked someone because they have a same sex of TG partner? Or were supposed to be gay but were spotted on a hetero date?
Were the wrong religion? Or none at all?





I'd be outraged at these things. They are violations of federally-protected civil rights.




Voted republican when your boss wanted you to vote Democrat?




I'd be outraged if it happened in the very few few states where that's prohibited or it was a government employer.



Hang out with bikers on the weekend? Or hang out with the wrong club?



I would not be outraged unless it was a government employer.


***


All of that said, I think it was very lame that this woman's employer fired her for giving the finger to Trump's motorcade...if that was the one and only reason. But we will never know because her employer must protect her privacy and cannot defend themselves if there was more behind the decision to fire her than that.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Thoughts on the idiots from Charlottesville who lost their jobs after being doxxed?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join