Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [gregtryin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gregtryin wrote:
I understand your giving her the benefit of doubt, but there just isn't much to doubt here.


The benefit of doubt I'm giving her is that she is just an idiot, not a military hating anti-American moonbat who would probably stab the old guard and defecate on the tomb if given the chance. That's all:). I don't think it's really letting her off easy, it's just not making her the anti christ.
Last edited by: Quel: Nov 21, 12 11:01
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not actually replying to the last poster... just used to hit "reply' in general...

You guys rage much?????


Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [RockyMtnChic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RockyMtnChic wrote:

True, but perhaps it is a lesson to other moonbats to keep their bullshit to themselves in this day of social media.


Maybe you out to change the word moonbat to your name and take your own advice.[/quote]
Shouldn't you be busy getting your work at home porn business off the ground?

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [Quel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quel wrote:
gregtryin wrote:
I understand your giving her the benefit of doubt, but there just isn't much to doubt here.


The benefit of doubt I'm giving her is that she is just an idiot, not a military hating anti-American moonbat who would probably stab the old guard and defecate on the tomb if given the chance. That's all:). I don't think it's really letting her off easy, it's just not making her the anti christ.

x2. What they did was disrespectful. Labeling it as "..Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" is a huge over reach.

Giggling and telling jokes in church is disrespectful, shitting on the altar is desecration.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/...on/english/desecrate

Definition of desecrate
verb [with object]
  • [/url]
    treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect: more than 300 graves were desecrated
  • [/url]
    spoil (something which is valued or respected): many lanes are desecrated with yellow lines


Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [chainpin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lefties? How about "White People Desecrate Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?"
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Giggling and telling jokes in church is disrespectful, shitting on the altar is defecation.

fify

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This idiot absolutely desecrated this Tomb.

to violate the sanctity of : profane <desecrate a shrine>. 2. : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, ...

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Freedom of speech only applies to government actors. I see nothing that indicates they were arrested, so, what is your beef?

I might have a beef with that.

You're saying that employers have a right to fire employees for exercising their freedom of speech?

Their employer has the right to terminate them for their conduct. They were on a business trip, on company time, and they did something that made the employer look bad.

It isn't clear to me from the story that they were on company time. They were in DC on a business trip. That doesn't mean their visit to the Tomb occurred on company time.










"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:

Freedom of speech only applies to government actors. I see nothing that indicates they were arrested, so, what is your beef?

I might have a beef with that.

You're saying that employers have a right to fire employees for exercising their freedom of speech?

Their employer has the right to terminate them for their conduct. They were on a business trip, on company time, and they did something that made the employer look bad.

It isn't clear to me from the story that they were on company time. They were in DC on a business trip. That doesn't mean their visit to the Tomb occurred on company time.


They were on a company trip and this chick was asked by many people repeatedly for over a month to take this photo off her facebook page.

She really sorry now though, and ashamed, since it went viral...loser.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [chainpin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

She really sorry now though, and ashamed, since it went viral...loser.

As she should be.

That doesn't address whether or not she was on company time, and it doesn't mean she should be fired for it.









"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [chainpin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chainpin wrote:
This idiot absolutely desecrated this Tomb.

to violate the sanctity of : profane <desecrate a shrine>. 2. : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, ...

Well if you're going to use that definition you've been desecrating the Lavender Room for quite some time...

Though personally, I would just call it disrespectful.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [chainpin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
True, but perhaps it is a lesson to other moonbats to keep their bullshit to themselves in this day of social media.

I disagree. This is one of the many valuable services instant access to social media provides; it tears down part of the barrier we've erected between stupidity and pain. Facebook and twitter are exceptionally good at letting people know, in real time, who and what you really are.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nslckevin wrote:
chainpin wrote:
This idiot absolutely desecrated this Tomb.

to violate the sanctity of : profane <desecrate a shrine>. 2. : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, ...


Well if you're going to use that definition you've been desecrating the Lavender Room for quite some time...

Though personally, I would just call it disrespectful.

Well, I guess you could call this place a tomb, as there are surely quite a few dead bodies buried here.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Freedom of speech only applies to government actors. I see nothing that indicates they were arrested, so, what is your beef?

I might have a beef with that.

You're saying that employers have a right to fire employees for exercising their freedom of speech?


That is exactly what I am saying and, yes, with very, very few exceptions, it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Employers do so all the time.



Quote:
Their employer has the right to terminate them for their conduct. They were on a business trip, on company time, and they did something that made the employer look bad.

It isn't clear to me from the story that they were on company time. They were in DC on a business trip. That doesn't mean their visit to the Tomb occurred on company time.


Yes, it does. When you are on a business trip, paid for by your employer, you employer has the right to discipline you for inappropriate conduct during that trip, even if it occurs outside of normal work hours.

This is what I do for a living and deal with cases like this frequently. I have handled a number of cases where employees were fired for drunken behavior (for example) while away for a business conference that occurred outside of normal work hours.


EDIT TO ADD: (Not directed specifically to you) It amazes me how many people think an employer must have "cause" or "just cause" to terminate an employee. This mentality is the reason why so many incompetent employees remain employed while their supervisors sit with their thumbs up their asses bitching about them. Most employees, in most states, are "at-will." At-will employees can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it is not an illegal reason. So, if you do something stupid and make an ass of yourself, your employer absolutely has the right to fire you (with exceedingly small exceptions).



If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Last edited by: JSA: Nov 21, 12 15:21
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
Trispoke wrote:
JSA wrote:
Trispoke wrote:
Anyone else not care or see this as a big deal? IMO, people are wound up way too tight and go looking for reasons to be outraged.

Of course it is in poor taste. But disrespectful? Meh. She tried to be funny in front of the sign. If you are reading more into that then....well, you are reading more into it.


Why am I not surprised that you would have no issue with this? Two things are painfully obvious: (1) you have never served and (2) you have no clue what selfless service means.

Thank God there are enough men and women who don't think like you to protect your right to think like you.


Maybe if you didn't have a stick shoved so far up your ass, you wouldn't let things like this bother you. But that's par for the course coming from you.

But your right....it has everything to do with whether I served or not (rolls eyes). Thank God only those who serve can only be outraged by this.

Keep living in your fantasy world. It's really telling when your position is more extreme than CP's. Your position as LR kook is almost complete.


You do not have to serve to have respect for those who have -- or even more so, for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. But, you have no respect. None. You are a little twit who takes what he has for granted w/o any consideration for who/what protects those rights.

Who said outrage? Go back and read my post and show me where I show any amount of outrage. I may have a stick up my ass, but, you have your head placed firmed up yours. It is simply incredible.

You are quickly surpassing YaHey as the LR Village Idiot. Congratulation. Well played, sir. Well played.

Pssst.... I don't know Trispoke at all, but I actually did serve in the military (USN), as did my dad (USA), a brother (USA), 2 sisters-in-law (both USA, one still active), and a brother-in-law (USMC)... just so ignorant cunts like those pictured are free to make stupid disrespectful gestures which don't in fact actually injure anyone. So you're gonna tell me what now about guarding people's rights?

I've seen/heard nothing to change my original impression they simply thought they were performing a clever faux-rebel prank, not really so much different from thousands of drunken frat boys in poor taste every Spring Break; they're quite obviously not thoughtful enough to be doing it as a political protest. Sure, I'd be annoyed if I saw them doing it, but move on already. It's far more annoying to listen to the righties here constantly bag on the Govt for infringing on individual liberties in one post, and then actually believe their own BS when they try to act like the Respect Cop by telling someone else who didn't serve that he should essentially STFU because somehow he didn't 'earn' the right. Well, if Trispoke didn't serve, I earned it for him. So get over yourself, jackass.

How about the time I was in Italy at the Leaning Tower park and got to witness a group of jarheads from my troop transport step over the walkway railing and mug for the camera by doing a human pyramid on the grounds right next to a "Please Keep Off The Grass" sign? Is that more or less disrespectful being that we were guests in another country? Funny I noticed the sign was only in English despite it being an obvious tourist area with other signs and restaurant menus in all sorts of other languages, so I guess it must not have been the first time. But hey, they obviously served 'selflessly' as you like to say, so that must be cool.
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, you say this:


OneGoodLeg wrote:
Pssst.... I don't know Trispoke at all, but I actually did serve in the military (USN), as did my dad (USA), a brother (USA), 2 sisters-in-law (both USA, one still active), and a brother-in-law (USMC)... just so ignorant cunts like those pictured are free to make stupid disrespectful gestures which don't in fact actually injure anyone. So you're gonna tell me what now about guarding people's rights?
Which is harsher than anything I have said on this thread (which I did not start by the way). You actually used what is the most offense word you could possibly use regarding a woman. Obviously, their actions struck a cord with you (or, you hate women, but, I will give you the benefit of the doubt).

Then you say this:


OneGoodLeg wrote:
try to act like the Respect Cop by telling someone else who didn't serve that he should essentially STFU because somehow he didn't 'earn' the right. Well, if Trispoke didn't serve, I earned it for him. So get over yourself, jackass.
Interesting. Go back and read my posts and show me where I told him he should STFU b/c he did not "earn the right." What I chastised him for was saying that this was no big deal. Obviously, based on the first quote I pulled from your response, you do not feel the same way as our little buddy, Trispoke. Yet you tell me to "get over yourself, jackass." Good stuff!

You also took the time to quote my post, which is as follows:


JSA wrote:
You do not have to serve to have respect for those who have -- or even more so, for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. But, you have no respect. None. You are a little twit who takes what he has for granted w/o any consideration for who/what protects those rights.
(Emphasis added). Yet you want to berate me for allegedly claiming that those who did not serve need to STFU. Really?




If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:

She really sorry now though, and ashamed, since it went viral...loser.

As she should be.

That doesn't address whether or not she was on company time, and it doesn't mean she should be fired for it.

From reports I have heard here she was on company time.

People get fired for all kinds of lesser shit everyday, so I don't see why she shouldn't get the axe, if it was my company I would fire her.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
  
Quote:
Pssst.... I don't know Trispoke at all, but I actually did serve in the military (USN), as did my dad (USA), a brother (USA), 2 sisters-in-law (both USA, one still active), and a brother-in-law (USMC)... just so ignorant cunts like those pictured are free to make stupid disrespectful gestures which don't in fact actually injure anyone. So you're gonna tell me what now about guarding people's rights?


first off, what a jack ass thing to say.

second, you served in the military. awesome. seriously, thats good. but dont kid yourself into thinking that you were protecting her freedom of speech. you werent. there has not been any outside threat to our personal freedoms within most of our lifetimes. the only serious threats to our rights would come from our own politicians. what you were doing was protecting her and the rest of us from physical harm. which is obviously admiribal, but you didnt do anything to protect her right to take that photo unless you were supporting specific legislation to do so. but thats something any citizen can do, no military service required.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Last edited by: veganerd: Nov 21, 12 17:51
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

That is exactly what I am saying and, yes, with very, very few exceptions, it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Employers do so all the time.


It might very well be legal in most states. I don't believe it's right anywhere, and I find the idea of employers firing employees for exercising their right to speech (or any other right, for that matter) much more disturbing than a couple of morons flipping the bird at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

It amazes me how many people think an employer must have "cause" or "just cause" to terminate an employee. This mentality is the reason why so many incompetent employees remain employed while their supervisors sit with their thumbs up their asses bitching about them. Most employees, in most states, are "at-will." At-will employees can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it is not an illegal reason.


If employers are keeping incompetent employees on the payroll, I guess I can only say that the employer is just as incompetent- surely incompetence at one's job represents just cause to fire someone. As far as the legality of firing employees for behavior outside of work, I generally think laws and policies that allow it are bullshit, and corrosive to American ideals of freedom. It's not really any of my employers business what I do on my own time. (And yes, I think that ought to include time outside of working hours even if I'm on a business trip.)









"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My expectations for this thread have been met and exceeded, well done LR sheep, well done.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Quote Reply
Post deleted by spot [ In reply to ]
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OneGoodLeg wrote:
JSA wrote:
Trispoke wrote:
JSA wrote:
Trispoke wrote:
Anyone else not care or see this as a big deal? IMO, people are wound up way too tight and go looking for reasons to be outraged.

Of course it is in poor taste. But disrespectful? Meh. She tried to be funny in front of the sign. If you are reading more into that then....well, you are reading more into it.


Why am I not surprised that you would have no issue with this? Two things are painfully obvious: (1) you have never served and (2) you have no clue what selfless service means.

Thank God there are enough men and women who don't think like you to protect your right to think like you.


Maybe if you didn't have a stick shoved so far up your ass, you wouldn't let things like this bother you. But that's par for the course coming from you.

But your right....it has everything to do with whether I served or not (rolls eyes). Thank God only those who serve can only be outraged by this.

Keep living in your fantasy world. It's really telling when your position is more extreme than CP's. Your position as LR kook is almost complete.


You do not have to serve to have respect for those who have -- or even more so, for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. But, you have no respect. None. You are a little twit who takes what he has for granted w/o any consideration for who/what protects those rights.

Who said outrage? Go back and read my post and show me where I show any amount of outrage. I may have a stick up my ass, but, you have your head placed firmed up yours. It is simply incredible.

You are quickly surpassing YaHey as the LR Village Idiot. Congratulation. Well played, sir. Well played.


Pssst.... I don't know Trispoke at all, but I actually did serve in the military (USN), as did my dad (USA), a brother (USA), 2 sisters-in-law (both USA, one still active), and a brother-in-law (USMC)... just so ignorant cunts like those pictured are free to make stupid disrespectful gestures which don't in fact actually injure anyone. So you're gonna tell me what now about guarding people's rights?

I've seen/heard nothing to change my original impression they simply thought they were performing a clever faux-rebel prank, not really so much different from thousands of drunken frat boys in poor taste every Spring Break; they're quite obviously not thoughtful enough to be doing it as a political protest. Sure, I'd be annoyed if I saw them doing it, but move on already. It's far more annoying to listen to the righties here constantly bag on the Govt for infringing on individual liberties in one post, and then actually believe their own BS when they try to act like the Respect Cop by telling someone else who didn't serve that he should essentially STFU because somehow he didn't 'earn' the right. Well, if Trispoke didn't serve, I earned it for him. So get over yourself, jackass.

How about the time I was in Italy at the Leaning Tower park and got to witness a group of jarheads from my troop transport step over the walkway railing and mug for the camera by doing a human pyramid on the grounds right next to a "Please Keep Off The Grass" sign? Is that more or less disrespectful being that we were guests in another country? Funny I noticed the sign was only in English despite it being an obvious tourist area with other signs and restaurant menus in all sorts of other languages, so I guess it must not have been the first time. But hey, they obviously served 'selflessly' as you like to say, so that must be cool.

From MSNBC:

"The Old Guard, the U.S. Army Infantry regiment that is charged with guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns and is famous for weathering literal storms, seems prepared to weather a social media storm as well. They told Gonzalez that Stone is entitled to her freedom of speech.
And as for Stone's photo, the Old Guard said, it deserves no futher comment."

Spot

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Once again, the Old Guard has done our nation proud.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
That is exactly what I am saying and, yes, with very, very few exceptions, it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Employers do so all the time.

It might very well be legal in most states. I don't believe it's right anywhere, and I find the idea of employers firing employees for exercising their right to speech (or any other right, for that matter) much more disturbing than a couple of morons flipping the bird at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
It is legal in every state. Why is it an issue for you? Let's take another example. Employee is wearing a Company t-shirt during a KKK rally. Is hooting and hollering in front on a burning cross. Video makes it on Youtube and goes viral. Suddenly, Company is being boycotted. In your world, it would be wrong for Company to fire the employee?



Quote:
It amazes me how many people think an employer must have "cause" or "just cause" to terminate an employee. This mentality is the reason why so many incompetent employees remain employed while their supervisors sit with their thumbs up their asses bitching about them. Most employees, in most states, are "at-will." At-will employees can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it is not an illegal reason.

If employers are keeping incompetent employees on the payroll, I guess I can only say that the employer is just as incompetent- surely incompetence at one's job represents just cause to fire someone. As far as the legality of firing employees for behavior outside of work, I generally think laws and policies that allow it are bullshit, and corrosive to American ideals of freedom. It's not really any of my employers business what I do on my own time. (And yes, I think that ought to include time outside of working hours even if I'm on a business trip.)
Couple points here. First, incompetent employees are kept b/c companies does not know the law or are afraid to follow it. It is the reason why guys like me continue to be gainfully employed. Second, see my example above. In your world, the Company has no recourse? Really? Third, regarding the business trip -- the employer is paying for that trip. So, in your world, the employer has no control over anything that happens outside of working hours? Ok, let's take another example. Employee goes on business trip to win new customer for Company. Company pays for the travel, hotel, food, etc. The business meeting goes well and it looks like employee is going to land a major customer for Company. Employee goes out for drinks that night and runs into the Customer. Employee is drunk off his ass and makes a fool of himself. Next day, new customer drops the account. In your world, the Company has no recourse for that conduct?

BTW, I am not making up any of these examples.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Moobats Desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier--Why? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is legal in every state. Why is it an issue for you?

You're a lawyer, and I'm not, and you specialize in this area of the law, while I certainly don't. But I'm not sure that the legality of firing an employee for something like this is as unquestionable as you've suggested. A very quick internet check ( I know. I know, OK?) says this:


Despite this relativity, most states agree that the following reasons for termination would violate public policy and would therefore be illegal:
  • terminating an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act (such as refusing to falsify insurance claims or lie to government auditors)
  • terminating an employee for complaining about an employer's illegal conduct (such as the employer's failure to pay minimum wage), and
  • terminating an employee for exercising a legal right (such as voting or taking family leave).



Regardless, I'm not arguing with you over the law. You might be perfectly correct about that, and if these two idiots get fired over their idiotic photo, they might very well lose the lawsuit they will almost certainly initiate. I don't know.

But I don't know why you think that if an activity- in this case, firing someone for exercising their right to speech- is legal, I should have no problem with it. There are lots of reprehensible activities that are nevertheless legal. In some such cases, I think the law should be changed. In other cases, I think the reprehensible behavior should remain legal- but the behavior is still reprehensible.

Employee is wearing a Company t-shirt during a KKK rally. Is hooting and hollering in front on a burning cross. Video makes it on Youtube and goes viral. Suddenly, Company is being boycotted. In your world, it would be wrong for Company to fire the employee?


I would say that it depends. Is it a t-shirt that anyone might wear, owned by the employee? Or is it part of an official uniform that employee wears at work? If the latter, I think the employer has legitimate cause to fire the employee, for the simple reason that by wearing the company uniform, the employee has effectively presented himself as a representative of the company. If the former, not so much.

In your world, the Company has no recourse? Really?


Yeah, very likely the company should have no recourse. Really. Why should it? Let's say the employee at the KKK rally is not wearing a uniform shirt, but just a plain old t-shirt with his employer's logo on it, like any other Joe Schmo might wear. Or let's say he isn't wearing a company shirt, or if he is, you can't see it under his Klan sheet. The company should be able to fire him for his personal beliefs, expressed in accordance with his Constitutional guarantee to be able to do so, outside of work?

regarding the business trip -- the employer is paying for that trip. So, in your world, the employer has no control over anything that happens outside of working hours?


Not really, no. The employer isn't paying to control anything outside of working hours, so I don't really see why an employee should hand over control of his free time for nothing- let alone give up the exercise of his American freedoms.

I'm an hourly employee. Occasionally my company sends me out of town, maybe for training, maybe to lend a hand in another market. They pay for the trip- the plane ticket, the hotel, and so on, because they need me to be there for some reason. They pay me my hourly rate while I'm in training to acquire the skills necessary to perform my job, or while I'm actually working. They don't continue to pay me while I'm out of town, away from my home and family, after the work day is done. That means I'm off the clock. I'm a private citizen. The company isn't paying me to be a company representative 24/7.

People are hired to do a job. They are paid to do that job. That is, they receive a paycheck in exchange for their labor. They don't sell themselves into indentured servitude, they are not generally hired to be spokesmen for their company every minute of their lives, they aren't paid to suspend their Constitutional rights. We are talking about persons and citizens who have jobs, not mindless labor units that function as company automatons for the duration of their employment.

What if my employer fires me because I oppose same sex marriage, and have contributed money to lobby against it? You're OK with that? What if my employer fires me because he discovers I legally own firearms? You're OK with that? What if my employer fires me because someone tells him I drink on the weekends, and my employer is a teetotaler. You're OK with that?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply

Prev Next