Koran Burner fired from his JOB (Violation of 1A?)

[IndyMonkey]

I absolutely did not. But apparently unlike everyone else, I recognize that the fact that actions having consequences is not the same thing as actions being prohibited. To be legally prohibited from speaking, on threat of arrest and/or imprisonment, is one thing. To speak and have someone else take offense and change their relationship with you as a result, is another.

why should burning a piece of paper in NY have consequences to an upper management train conductor in NJ two days after he did it?

 

[miguel]

I bet his union will stand up for him. NOT!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love union humor.

 

[IndyMonkey]

I absolutely did not. But apparently unlike everyone else, I recognize the fact that actions having consequences is not the same thing as actions being prohibited. To be legally prohibited from speaking, on threat of arrest and/or imprisonment, is one thing. To speak and have someone else take offense and change their relationship with you as a result, is another.

As an experiment, call your mother up and tell her she's a worthless whore. When she gets pissed, tell her not to infringe on your First Amendment rights, and that you didn't agree to giving up your constitutional rights just by having a mother.

My mom died 14 years ago so I cant make that call.

He wasnt calling the NJ transit a dirty whore, it had nothing to do with who he was or who he worked for.

 

[Fletch]

He wasnt calling the NJ transit a dirty whore, it had nothing to do with who he was or who he worked for.

And here I thought the premise of America was that the government worked for the people, including those people who happen to be Muslim. If I said something viciously offensive to or about one of my company's clients, I would expect to be fired.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I absolutely did not. But apparently unlike everyone else, I recognize the fact that actions having consequences is not the same thing as actions being prohibited. To be legally prohibited from speaking, on threat of arrest and/or imprisonment, is one thing. To speak and have someone else take offense and change their relationship with you as a result, is another.

As an experiment, call your mother up and tell her she's a worthless whore. When she gets pissed, tell her not to infringe on your First Amendment rights, and that you didn't agree to giving up your constitutional rights just by having a mother.

I suspect that being fired from a job, with a family to support is worse than going to jail.


What right does an employer have, to fire someone when off work, for issues completely unrelated?

Do you see the intimidation here? No individual should be punished at work, for something that did not occur at work. I suspect, this is the reason why America has allowed itself to tank.

People care more about putting food on the plate, than saving America, and not wrongly. But the practice is disgusting, and should not be allowed, as it allows discrimination against those who dont share your opinion.


But hey, America is all about discrimination

 

[IndyMonkey]

And here I thought the premise of America was that the government worked for the people, including those people who happen to be Muslim.

It does, its what keeps me from smashing them in the mouth for burning the American flag.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

And here I thought the premise of America was that the government worked for the people, including those people who happen to be Muslim. If I said something viciously offensive to or about one of my company's clients, I would expect to be fired.

What an individual does on his private time, is his business, not the Govt


And if one your companies clients were robbing your Company, or causing corruption, then you ought to be given a medal.

But again, off work time, is private time.

 

[sj kahr k40]

So he was fired for burning his property, what's next is the NJ transit going to fire everyone that smokes or has a fire?

 

[Fletch]

I simply don't see employment as slavery for either the worker or the employer. It's not an obligation for either to continue the relationship (assuming no contract, of course). I could walk in tomorrow and tell my employer that I'm done working for them, I quit, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. They can do the same and tell me they're done employing me. Neither of us needs even the slightest reason to do so, and without a voluntarily-entered contract stating otherwise, any attempt to force the unwilling party to continue the relationship is slavery.

 

[mrjarrell]

Employers fire people for stuff they do on their own time, all the time. Just ask people who've smoked a joint on their own time and then been drug tested on company time. Or someone who gets tagged for a DUI on their time and their employer finds out. Many jobs have terms of employment and it looks like this guy broke one of the rules for his.

 

[IndyMonkey]

I simply don't see employment as slavery for either the worker or the employer. It's not an obligation for either to continue the relationship (assuming no contract, of course). I could walk in tomorrow and tell my employer that I'm done working for them, I quit, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. They can do the same and tell me they're done employing me. Neither of us needs even the slightest reason to do so, and without a voluntarily-entered contract stating otherwise, any attempt to force the unwilling party to continue the relationship is slavery.

So what happens when your employer finds out that your gay and you meet men at rest-stops and they fire you because one of there gay uncles use to molest them?

 

[Fletch]

So what happens when your employer finds out that your gay and you meet men at rest-stops and they fire you because one of there gay uncles use to molest them?

Seems pretty obvious to me. I find another job. Glad I could help you out with that.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Seems pretty obvious to me. I find another job. Glad I could help you out with that.

sorry its 2010 and good paying quality jobs are hard to come by.

 

[E5RANGER375]

It does, its what keeps me from smashing them in the mouth for burning the American flag.

i wanna rep you for that so bad but im all out. later i guess. that was good.

 

[Cemetery-man]

So then after this any person caught warming their hands over an open fire in a barrel in NY will have to be arrested, lose their job (if employed) and be engulfed by mass media coverage for disobeying an open fire law?

 

[Fargo]

As an experiment, call your mother up and tell her she's a worthless whore. When she gets pissed, tell her not to infringe on your First Amendment rights, and that you didn't agree to giving up your constitutional rights just by having a mother.

The First Amendment doesn't apply to your Mom, or to private corporations. It applies to the GOVERNMENT and the GOVERNMENT alone. There are tons of things private entities can do that the GOVERNMENT can't. There is a reason for that; the framers feared TYRANNY. Why you refuse to see the difference is beyond me...

 

[Fletch]

Every one of us hires and fires people on a regular basis, and we give no reason whatsoever for our decisions.

When we shop at a particular grocery store, we're saying "I'm hiring you to provide me with food". When that store does something we don't like, as with the folks who've sworn off Wal-Mart, we summarily fire them and hire someone else. Our reasons can be as petty as we want ("so-and-so way up in the company expressed an opinion that gun owners are idiot rednecks"), or completely nonexistent ("I just decided to shop at XYZ instead"). And it doesn't take any major amounts of Google-fu to find plenty of examples right here on this forum.

Wages and labor are no different than any other exchange of value for value. Either party can decide they no longer want to continue the relationship, for any reason or no reason, and do their trading somewhere else. There's nothing shocking or sinister or even remarkable about this. It's simply economic preferences being expressed, and none of it needs to be debated or howled about.

 

[Fletch]

The First Amendment doesn't apply to your Mom, or to private corporations. It applies to the GOVERNMENT and the GOVERNMENT alone. There are tons of things private entities can do that the GOVERNMENT can't. There is a reason for that; the framers feared TYRANNY. Why you refuse to see the difference is beyond me...

I refuse to see the difference because I don't believe there should be a difference. As I stated upthread, I don't believe in special privileges, and I especially don't believe in special privileges for government workers.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I guess this is just simplified as Double Standards.

Someone making Dope, IMO, is siginificantly different than someone burning a book.

Not right, but it isnt wrong either.

Im talking about Intimidation of Professional career, and violation of 1A.

Do people who make anti-American gestures get fired from they're job? I doubt it, Im willing to bet they get a raise.

Iran Ayatollahs Issue Fatwas Against Koran-Burners - BusinessWeek



What a great Country this is..

Man is fired for voicing his opinion, expressing himself, and now fired.

And now a Death sentence is given to him.

I wonder if the USA can violate some more constitution to ensure the safety of Mr. Fenton?

 

[Fargo]

Lemme get this straight: you ignore the plain wording of the First Amendment because you don't like it?

Good luck getting the Bill of Right's repealed so that we don't have any "special privileges" against the government. Let me know how that goes for you.

Willfully ignoring the very real difference between the government and the private sector is just astounding. Never let reality get in the way of fantasy.

Joe