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

[360]

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.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post. I usually can see your side in your posts, but with your stance on this issue, my eyes are watering.

 

[PatriotPride]

Unfortunately, you can be fired in Indiana for doing something "off-duty" that your employer has a political problem with. Been there, done that. And to continue with what IndyMonkey said, ANY jobs are hard to come by right now.

 

[tyler34]

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.

well I refuse to believe I'm fat but a scale says otherwise.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Unfortunately, you can be fired in Indiana for doing something "off-duty" that your employer has a political problem with. Been there, done that. And to continue with what IndyMonkey said, ANY jobs are hard to come by right now.

So you see the intimidation that is allowed to develop?


I wonder how many millions of silent protesters would be in the streets if they're OPINION could not get them fired?

 

[E5RANGER375]

i think the real criminals here besides NJ, are the media scumbags.

they are the biggest instigators of everything big that happens in this country. they certainly arent around to keep the government honest like they use to do. now the government ownes them.

 

[Fletch]

Good luck getting the Bill of Right's repealed so that we don't have any "special privileges" against the government.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.

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I don't believe the BoR should be repealed. I just don't believe it applies in all cases of individual vs. government. Bureaucratic jobs-for-life is a central problem of the cost of government, and it is precisely because we extend extra economic "rights" and privileges to people who work for the government that this problem exists.

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.

The government-as-employer should operate under the same rules as the private-sector-as-employer. How is this a fantasy? Why do you want government workers to be privileged over private sector workers? They're already being paid out of the private sector worker's pocket, that same worker who can be fired for any reason or no reason, and now you want them to have greater job security than the average private sector worker, just because they're members of the privileged class of government workers. How is this even remotely reasonable? America is supposed to be against aristocracy.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Fletch, I agree. It's not like the Govt doesnt discriminate in the hiring process.


So much for the constitution.

 

[Fletch]

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

I see nowhere that Congress (or New Jersey, for that matter) has made a law prohibiting the burning of a Koran.

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, I agree. It's not like the Govt doesnt discriminate in the hiring process.

Of course it discriminates, and well it should. It's the attempts to eliminate discrimination that have wrecked fire departments, the military, and police forces across the country, by allowing people who can't actually do the job to pass "modified standards" tests. Discrimination is a good thing -- it simply means "being choosy". I'm sorry, but Stephen Hawking would not make a good Marine, no matter how many quotas that would fill.

 

[downzero]

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.

That's perfectly fine, but most people don't work for the government, and if the content of his speech is what he was fired for by a government official, there are some pretty serious (potential) problems with that.

That said, there is no "right" to government benefits, so I'm not sure that the First Amendment could apply in any way to this man's actions. You don't have a property interest in your government job, either, so it'd seem that no genuine constitutional issue is in play here.

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

Let's just tone this down a little bit here. The plain wording of the 1A isn't at issue here. The question is whether or not the 1A is implicated when an employee of the government loses his job for the content of his speech.

I'm not exactly sure why the government can't have at-will employees just like everyone else does in the private sector. I don't believe that anyone has a constitutional right to a government job, either.

But I've been wrong before.

 

[Fargo]

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I don't believe the BoR should be repealed. I just don't believe it applies in all cases of individual vs. government.

Ok, good luck getting the BoR amended to exclude retaliatory employment decisions. I'm sure you will have even better luck with that.

Bureaucratic jobs-for-life is a central problem of the cost of government, and it is precisely because we extend extra economic "rights" and privileges to people who work for the government that this problem exists.

No, it is precisely because merit has so little to do with it. It has nothing to do with the government's inability to fire you for exercising your constitutional rights.

The government-as-employer should operate under the same rules as the private-sector-as-employer. How is this a fantasy?

It is a fantasy because the Bill of Rights prohibits it. There you go with that privilege thing again. It isn't about "privilege", it is about whether or not the government is allowed to retaliate against you for exercising a constitutional right. I find it amazing that you seem to think that the BoR is a list of "privileges".

They're already being paid out of the private sector worker's pocket...

Yeah, cause public employees don't pay taxes either. If the "private workers" don't like paying taxes, they should get together with the "public workers" and vote some new folks into office. There is no way you can blame the existence of the government upon government workers. The government in this country exists as it does because the PEOPLE made it that way.

...that same worker who can be fired for any reason or no reason, and now you want them to have greater job security than the average private sector worker, just because they're members of the privileged class of government workers. How is this even remotely reasonable? America is supposed to be against aristocracy.

Once again, this has nothing to do with "Privilege". What I DON'T want to see is the government coercing people not to exercise their Rights. Its call the "Bill of Rights" for a reason. Good luck getting your "Bill of Privileges with Limitations" passed.

Joe

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Of course it discriminates, and well it should. It's the attempts to eliminate discrimination that have wrecked fire departments, the military, and police forces across the country, by allowing people who can't actually do the job to pass "modified standards" tests. Discrimination is a good thing -- it simply means "being choosy". I'm sorry, but Stephen Hawking would not make a good Marine, no matter how many quotas that would fill.

So merit is of no value; Govt can hire all the idiots for they're quotas.

 

[Fletch]

Once again, this has nothing to do with "Privilege". What I DON'T want to see is the government coercing people not to exercise their Rights. Its call the "Bill of Rights" for a reason. Good luck getting your "Bill of Privileges with Limitations" passed.

I have no desire to see anything passed. All I'm saying is that if my employer can (rightly) terminate me for any reason or no reason, then anyone's employer should be able to do the same*. By the same token, if I can leave my employment for any reason or no reason, then any other employee should be able to do the same*.

There was a flap several years ago about GWB firing some dude. The left tried to make a bunch of hay over it, but it ultimately came down to "the person in this position serves at the pleasure of the President". I see no reason why this should not extend downward to the rest of the structure.

*Excepting the obvious caveat of voluntary contract stipulations.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Let's just tone this down a little bit here. .

 

[Fargo]

I see nowhere that Congress (or New Jersey, for that matter) has made a law prohibiting the burning of a Koran.

I knew we would get there:

Try Article I, Section 6 New Jersey Constitution.

6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

I don't have time to go through 200+ plus years of federal jurisprudence on the matter.

Joe

 

[Fletch]

Of course it discriminates, and well it should. It's the attempts to eliminate discrimination that have wrecked fire departments, the military, and police forces across the country, by allowing people who can't actually do the job to pass "modified standards" tests. Discrimination is a good thing -- it simply means "being choosy". I'm sorry, but Stephen Hawking would not make a good Marine, no matter how many quotas that would fill.

So merit is of no value; Govt can hire all the idiots for they're quotas.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your post is positioned as a rebuttal to mine, but seems to agree with what I'm saying if taken as sarcasm.

 

[Fletch]

I knew we would get there:

Try Article I, Section 6 New Jersey Constitution.

Which seems to me to be entirely about criminal matters and libel. I don't see anything about termination of employment.

I don't have time to go through 200+ plus years of federal jurisprudence on the matter.

I'll grant at the outset that you may be able to find something which applies to termination of employment, but this doesn't mean much to my point. I'm talking about what's right, not what's legal. I still haven't seen any reason why government should be restrained from firing someone when a private company could do so. I will readily agree that government should not be able to fine, arrest, or imprison you for speaking, but I see nothing in your posts explaining why government should be prohibited from firing an employee for any reason or no reason.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your post is positioned as a rebuttal to mine, but seems to agree with what I'm saying if taken as sarcasm.

Discrimination as we see it today is NOT BASED ON MERIT, but on many factors, in which the Govt readily engages in to DISCRIMINATE.

And then you bring up analogies about Hawkings in the Marines, which like alot of the analogies, I find distateful and oversimplified.


Im not going to post anything, but making the comment, if you want to see Govt discrimination, look no further than Chicago Postal Services: Being choosy today, I suppose roughly equates to hiring the worst of the worst.

 

[Fletch]

Im not going to post anything, but making the comment, if you want to see Govt discrimination, look no further than Chicago Postal Services: Being choosy today, I suppose roughly equates to hiring the worst of the worst.

Now you're saying something different -- not that government should not discriminate, but that it's discriminating in a fashion which is detrimental to its putative mission and to society as a whole. On this I am in complete agreement.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I'm not saying it is right, but I am stating that both case precedence and law are on the favor of those doing the firing. When I signed up for the job that I have, I signed a code of conduct disclosure. Because I am part of a management salaried team, I can be terminated for code of ethics violations outside of work. I can be sued if it directly involves another employee "off the clock" and if I am embarrass myself and the company, by proxy, I can be fired.

Our company retains a lawyer and most of the above is a paraphrase of what he told us in a manager's meeting after another gentleman was canned for sexual harassment OFF THE CLOCK.