Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[whichphilosophy]

based on your fundamental misunderstanding of the US first amendment and what "free speech" in the context of america really means.

"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."

a college is not congress and so whatever they do is not an action covered under the first amendment, and students exercising their free speech to express their desire to not have some fuckwad come to the campus and speak and having the administrating body hear them and respond to their desire is free speech in action.
"free speech" means you can say what you what and the government won't arrest you for it... it doesn't mean you're entitled to a platform from which to spew your stupidity, and it doesn't mean other people are obligated to listen to you.
it never ceases to astound me how much difficulty people in the US have with comprehending this. do you need this in comic form to make it easier?

cool, so let them speak - that's why there is no law against them speaking. they can go stand on a street corner by the gas station with a bullhorn and scream about the liberal jews all day long.

Your argument is anachronistic as applied to public colleges. Your argument is applicable to the 1700 and 1800s, specifically the time period preceding passage of the 14th Amendment.

To be more precise, your argument was null and void the moment SCOTUS incorporated the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause onto the States. Public universities are state actors, and therefore, are subject to 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause.

This digression aside, the story here involves a restaurant. A restaurant, not constituting as a government actor, may fire any employee for their speech without implicating the 1st Amendment.

And I support his termination.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

 

[LordKiran]

based on your fundamental misunderstanding of the US first amendment and what "free speech" in the context of america really means.

"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."

a college is not congress and so whatever they do is not an action covered under the first amendment, and students exercising their free speech to express their desire to not have some fuckwad come to the campus and speak and having the administrating body hear them and respond to their desire is free speech in action.
"free speech" means you can say what you what and the government won't arrest you for it... it doesn't mean you're entitled to a platform from which to spew your stupidity, and it doesn't mean other people are obligated to listen to you.
it never ceases to astound me how much difficulty people in the US have with comprehending this. do you need this in comic form to make it easier?

cool, so let them speak - that's why there is no law against them speaking. they can go stand on a street corner by the gas station with a bullhorn and scream about the liberal jews all day long.

Your argument is anachronistic as applied to public colleges. Your argument is applicable to the 1700 and 1800s, specifically the time period preceding passage of the 14th Amendment.

To be more precise, your argument was null and void the moment SCOTUS incorporated the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause onto the States. Public universities are state actors, and therefore, are subject to 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause.

This digression aside, the story here involves a restaurant. A restaurant, not constituting as a government actor, may fire any employee for their speech without implicating the 1st Amendment.

And I support his termination.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

Well that's what Right to Work gets you. Just imagine being a member of a swinger's club/S&M community and your boss finding out and getting fired for it.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

There is where we differ. I think that most employers would prefer to avoid having idiots on their payroll, but I can understand why you disagree.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Free speech is where we allow views that we disagree with.

View attachment 13384

Problem is, it is no longer obvious to many. If it was, we wouldn't be seeing more and more of this. And we definitely wouldn't be seeing it more and more from the left and having folks on here defend such actions. Ronburgundy is 100% correct in his first post in this thread and "liberals" used to agree.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well that's what Right to Work gets you.

That was my thought as well. Looking at this from a Canadian perspective, with all of our labour protections, it would be much harder to fire this guy. We would probably still have him working there.

 

[Malintent]

Other groups with very large body counts are still allowed in the forum.

Such as...?

Jason may not have seen this, or maybe he tacitly retracts...

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

There is where we differ. I think that most employers would prefer to avoid having idiots on their payroll, but I can understand why you disagree.

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

 

[James Madison]

based on your fundamental misunderstanding of the US first amendment and what "free speech" in the context of america really means.

"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."

a college is not congress and so whatever they do is not an action covered under the first amendment, and students exercising their free speech to express their desire to not have some fuckwad come to the campus and speak and having the administrating body hear them and respond to their desire is free speech in action.
"free speech" means you can say what you what and the government won't arrest you for it... it doesn't mean you're entitled to a platform from which to spew your stupidity, and it doesn't mean other people are obligated to listen to you.
it never ceases to astound me how much difficulty people in the US have with comprehending this. do you need this in comic form to make it easier?

cool, so let them speak - that's why there is no law against them speaking. they can go stand on a street corner by the gas station with a bullhorn and scream about the liberal jews all day long.

Your argument is anachronistic as applied to public colleges. Your argument is applicable to the 1700 and 1800s, specifically the time period preceding passage of the 14th Amendment.

To be more precise, your argument was null and void the moment SCOTUS incorporated the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause onto the States. Public universities are state actors, and therefore, are subject to 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause.

This digression aside, the story here involves a restaurant. A restaurant, not constituting as a government actor, may fire any employee for their speech without implicating the 1st Amendment.

And I support his termination.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

I concur with your point "every idiot has a right to demonstrate their asininity." However, "every idiot" does not have an absolute right to employment. One area where employers should and need discretion in regards to hiring/termination in the area of ideological speech. Ideological speech can be potentially poisonous to the work environment and threaten the financial vitality of the business. Racist ideology, by an employee of a restaurant, certainly may pose a threat to the financial success of the restaurant and possibly result in a hostile work environment. His free speech rights in such a context cannot be paramount to the interests of the business.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

There is where we differ. I think that most employers would prefer to avoid having idiots on their payroll, but I can understand why you disagree.

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

Isn't there still a need to terminate him on the basis his racist ideology jeopardizes or could jeopardize the financial vitality of the business and disrupt the work environment?

 

[ksen]

This is a good thread to mention what happened with Faith Goldy being disinvited by Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson





Funny enough, Faith interviewed Gad when she was wearing a "Deus Vult" sweatshirt months before.

What are you complaining about?

Nazis have a platform for their speech: Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Breitbart, and 4Chan. What else do you need that those platforms can't already provide you?

I would also add the presidential bully pulpit to your list.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

There is where we differ. I think that most employers would prefer to avoid having idiots on their payroll, but I can understand why you disagree.

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

If someone is an idiot, the odds are he or she is either not doing the job or will screw up royally in the future. Furthermore, in this case, an idiot working as a server is most likely alienating customers, which is bad for business or is causing problems with his co-workers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

If someone is an idiot, the odds are he or she is either not doing the job or will screw up royally in the future. Furthermore, in this case, an idiot working as a server is most likely alienating customers, which is bad for business or is causing problems with his co-workers.

Being an idiot in itself does not alienate customers.

It's not clear what happened, but per the article

The restaurant gave a slightly different account in a statement it released on Wednesday, saying that because of the threats, he “suggested that we release him from employment.”

Was it customer alienation or political agitation??

Chances are no one cared a Rat's rear end except ANTIFA got into a froth. excited it found a real Nazi instead of tilting at windmills. At least it beats stopping traffic.

 

[laughing dog]

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

If someone is an idiot, the odds are he or she is either not doing the job or will screw up royally in the future. Furthermore, in this case, an idiot working as a server is most likely alienating customers, which is bad for business or is causing problems with his co-workers.

Being an idiot in itself does not alienate customers.

Being an idiot increases the odds that one does idiotic stuff to customers. Duh.

It's not clear what happened, but per the article

The restaurant gave a slightly different account in a statement it released on Wednesday, saying that because of the threats, he “suggested that we release him from employment.”

Was it customer alienation or political agitation??

Chances are no one cared a Rat's rear end except ANTIFA got into a froth. excited it found a real Nazi instead of tilting at windmills. At least it beats stopping traffic.

Chances are that only you care about a possible ANTIFA frothing.

There are plenty of people who will not patronize an establishment that employs or is run by Nazis.

But please, continue to argue that employers should be forced to employ idiots and Nazis.

 

[ronburgundy]

Ronburgundy is always 100% correct in his first post in this thread

FIFY

 

[whichphilosophy]

Being an idiot in itself does not alienate customers.

Being an idiot increases the odds that one does idiotic stuff to customers. Duh.

It's not clear what happened, but per the article

The restaurant gave a slightly different account in a statement it released on Wednesday, saying that because of the threats, he “suggested that we release him from employment.”

Was it customer alienation or political agitation??

Chances are no one cared a Rat's rear end except ANTIFA got into a froth. excited it found a real Nazi instead of tilting at windmills. At least it beats stopping traffic.

Chances are that only you care about a possible ANTIFA frothing.

There are plenty of people who will not patronize an establishment that employs or is run by Nazis.

But please, continue to argue that employers should be forced to employ idiots and Nazis.

I'm not aware that employers politically profile people for a job flipping burgers whereby the candidate qualified on IQ tests. Employers employ who they want. However we're not sure he was actually sacked.

 

[LordKiran]

This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

There is where we differ. I think that most employers would prefer to avoid having idiots on their payroll, but I can understand why you disagree.

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

Funny thing. In many states you don't need a reason. What's your opinion on Right-to-Work laws again?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

Funny thing. In many states you don't need a reason. What's your opinion on Right-to-Work laws again?

That's why I said no need.

There are variations in State laws etc.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired-for-your_b_9154066.html

Political affiliation/activities: Not all states have laws prohibiting political affiliation discrimination or termination for political activities, but many do. So do some counties and cities. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits political affiliation discrimination against federal employees. In Michigan, the laws prohibit direct or indirect threats against employees for the purpose of influencing their vote. It also prohibits tracking of political activity. In Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, employers are prohibited from posting or handing out notices threatening to shut down or lay off workers if a particular candidate is elected. In Oregon, it’s illegal to threaten loss of employment in order to influence the way someone votes. In Washington State, it’s illegal to retaliate against employees for failing to support a candidate, ballot position or political party. Some states, like California, Colorado, New York, North Dakota and Louisiana, say it’s illegal to retaliate against an employee for their off-duty participation in politics or political campaigns. In Florida, it’s a felony to “discharge or threaten to discharge any employee in his or her service for voting or not voting in any election, state, county, or municipal, for any candidate or measure submitted to a vote of the people.”

Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for legal activities outside work. If you’re involved in a political campaign and you work in one of these states, you can’t be fired for your political activities as long as they are legal activities.

Contract: If you have a contract saying you can only be fired for cause, then check what is says constitutes “cause.” It all depends on how it was drafted. Best read up before you give any press interviews that might offend your employer’s customers if you think you’re protected.

 

[ronburgundy]

If the man does his job no need to fire him.

Funny thing. In many states you don't need a reason. What's your opinion on Right-to-Work laws again?

That's why I said no need.

You also said "Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended." That means you think people have a right to a particular job and it should be illegal to fire them from it.

 

[laughing dog]

Being an idiot increases the odds that one does idiotic stuff to customers. Duh.
Chances are that only you care about a possible ANTIFA frothing.

There are plenty of people who will not patronize an establishment that employs or is run by Nazis.

But please, continue to argue that employers should be forced to employ idiots and Nazis.

I'm not aware that employers politically profile people for a job flipping burgers whereby the candidate qualified on IQ tests.

Irrelevant to the situation.

Employers employ who they want.

Employers sack who they want as well.

However we're not sure he was actually sacked.

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

 

[steve_bank]

From the reports out of California, limiting free speech to politically correct on campus is dangerous. It is sounding like Cuba or Venezuela or China.

the complete inability of the politically right mode of thinking to be able to grasp the fundamental difference between governmental oppression of speech and a single venue telling assholes to shut the fuck up never ceases to astound me.

Culture is far more powerful than our govt.

Witness Jim Crow, anti Irish in the past, anti Catholic, gays, Jews...

Over the last few decades Christians have glommed onto Jews as brothers of the bible. a complete cultural shift.

There is a cultural shift occurring that worries me more than the govt.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Irrelevant to the situation.

Employers employ who they want.

Employers sack who they want as well.

However we're not sure he was actually sacked.

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

See my post above. Workers' rights should not be perverted to discriminate against views, even where today political correctness is attempting to undermine freedom of views. Some idiots actually do a good job.