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

[ATOMonkey]

Dross, I agree with your assessment of the current nature of things, but disagree that protection is necessary.

Political organizations move slower than private ones, but the same market and economic forces still apply. If a political leader is immoral, corrupt, and unfair, they will be removed from office by the voting public. So, the incentive to stay in office would be to act in a moral, responsible, and fair manner.

This is the biggest reason why a free press and news media with unfettered access to all levels of government is so important. Without it, we remove the incentive for people to actually do the job for which they are elected. Without a watch dog, there is no accountability.

Back to the topic, I don't disagree that there exists a very real and large temptation to become corrupt, and deny government services, steal funds, etc. Perhaps that is what would be needed to demonstrate to the citizenry that relying on the government, for ANYTHING, is foolish at best. Putting up protections, and restrictions is just a band-aid that covers a festering wound, that if left open could be seen and treated.

 

[Fletch]

I understand your principles, but this is one of those areas when I think your desire to stay perfectly pure, places you outside the realm of achievable reality.

And frankly that's a perfectly valid response.

It may be that no one ever agrees with me, or that not enough agree to make any meaningful change, and I accept that. I don't do the things I do or say the things I say because I think they're easy or simple to put into practice. I do it and say it because that's what I believe is right.

There's a famous quote by G.K. Chesterton that goes here, but board rules prohibit my posting it.

 

[CarmelHP]

If a political leader is immoral, corrupt, and unfair, they will be removed from office by the voting public. So, the incentive to stay in office would be to act in a moral, responsible, and fair manner.

Wrong. The market incentive is buy the loyalty of enough of the voters through jobs as they need to in order to ensure re-election. Then send them out to intimidate anyone who opposes them and to work for their re-election. We've seen this play before. I can warp the free market as much as I want if you've just given me free reign to act as I wish on your money. We don't need that damn Constitution, "the free market will take care of it." ....And pixies and unicorns will sign me to sleep at night, too.

Back to the topic, I don't disagree that there exists a very real and large temptation to become corrupt, and deny government services, steal funds, etc. Perhaps that is what would be needed to demonstrate to the citizenry that relying on the government, for ANYTHING, is foolish at best. Putting up protections, and restrictions is just a band-aid that covers a festering wound, that if left open could be seen and treated.

You act as if we haven't seen this process before. The treatment was that protections were put in place. Among Big L Libertarians circular logic and denial of reality is considered a virtue.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Then perhaps the people deserve what they get if they're not interested enough to pay attention.

This amounts to nothing more than trying to save people from themselves. The apathy and ignorance of the people is being propped up by some rather innefectual measures that just force the criminals to operate in a more secretive manner or in the case of our current political ruling class to pass more rules and laws allowing them to operate legally.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because we have a rule or law about something that it will change the behavior of the people it was aimed at.

 

[CarmelHP]

It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because we have a rule or law about something that it will change the behavior of the people it was aimed at.

Like I said, this boils down to, "throw out the Constitution, it's just another worthless set of rules." Hell, why make anything illegal, it's ineffectual?

 

[rambone]

Remember those Health Care Bill protests we attended? If we lost our jobs over our presence there, would this be acceptable?

I wouldn't like it much, but then again, I don't have a right to receive paychecks from the man either. Let's put ourselves in our boss's shoes. I have a salesman who just made front page of the newspaper, at a book-burning of all things, and gave a colorful quote to the reporter - which is now published and circulating the region. My customers are seeing this man whom they associate with my business, and now they have a real funky taste in their mouth about buying my products, especially if I keep this person as my sales representative. I cannot imagine Government forcing by law that I keep such a liability on my payroll. It may very well boil down to firing this person, or closing my doors because my company image has suffered so much and lost so much business.

This very thing happened in Winfield within the last year. A restaurant owner decided NOT to fire an immigrant worker who drunkenly killed some people while driving. The restaurant customers were outraged, and spread the word. Customers vanished and the place went out of business. By all standards, the driving record of a cook shouldn't matter to a restaurant owner, but really, it certainly can.

Our bosses have every reason and right to expect us to be good advocates and representatives of our company. Just like employers look at Facebook pages to see what employees/applicants do with their spare time. If employees post pictures of themselves drinking beer out of a funnel and smoking contraband substances, the employer may decide that the person will not be a good representative of the company.



Someone might make a case for a violation of some employment discrimination law, but I just don't think this is a 1A constitutional issue.

 

[Joe Williams]

Ah, now we come to the essential point of disagreement. I don't really want "my" government interacting with employees or customers based on anything other than mutually voluntary association. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

So, since the government has declared white, conservative, Christian gun owners to be terrorists, you have no problem with them declaring that all such people are unfit to hold a government job?

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

I wonder if they would have fired him for burning a bible? He would probably have been given a promotion.

I used to wonder why people would lock themselves away in cabins in the wilderness. I am beginning to understand now....and they are right.

 

[Fletch]

So, since the government has declared white, conservative, Christian gun owners to be terrorists, you have no problem with them declaring that all such people are unfit to hold a government job?

Maybe more white conservative Christians would start acting the part if it did.

 

[Eddie]

I wanted to clarify some terms that have been thrown out in this thread, at least as they apply to Indiana. When you look at a government employee who has been fired and try to determine what their rights were to their job, there are four main catagories:

-At Will Employees-these are the most common; they have no employment contract, they are hired and fired at will, the main exception to firing them is that they can't be fired for a "bad reason". Bad reasons are things like racial or gender discrimination or retaliatory discharge as defined by state law. Firing them for exercising their free speech is a bad reason in Indiana.

-Contract Employees-most likely members of the various collective bargaining units; cops and firemen are common examples. These guys have contracts with grievance procedures that have to be followed or they can't be fired. If one of these guys says they were unfairly canned, the first thing to do is to read their contract.

-policy making employees-these are rare and similar to appointed officials. There is a body of case law that recognizes a limited right to some "spoils of war" positions in the form of key employees who set policy. A policy maker can in some circumstances be demoted or fired for a "bad reason", the common example being that they supported the incumbent and the new officeholder doesn't trust them in a policymaking position

-true appointed positions-these are more common than you think and tough to fire. A true appointee is someone whose position is created by a statute that has an elected official appoint them to hold an office for a period of time. Examples are members of things like the zoning board or the soil and water districts. They hold their position until their term is served unless the statute says otherwise. For the most part these guys are like elected officials and can't be fired.

 

[hornadylnl]

I went to the very first tea party in Chicago a year or two ago. It was cold that day and I wanted to wear a sock hat. Most of my sock hats I got from work and have my company logo on them. I had to dig around and find a sock hat that didn't have my company name on it. I didn't want to take the chance that my picture would end up on the front page of the paper and get back to my company. My company is fairly conservative as most of the break room tv's are on fox news channel. But that doesn't mean that one of our customers couldn't see the picture and cease doing business with us because of it.

I don't know if this guy was wearing any transit clothing to identify himself or not.

 

[CarmelHP]

The State also has a category of merit employee with specific rights.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Like I said, this boils down to, "throw out the Constitution, it's just another worthless set of rules." Hell, why make anything illegal, it's ineffectual?

You're working under the wrong assumptions.

The constitution is there to restrict government from making laws. That is the main and only purpose of the document.

It's not there to protect your job.

Laws that attempt to govern behavior are ineffectual.

The only laws necessary are those that cover victims deprived of Life, liberty, or property.

 

[Fletch]

The only laws necessary are those that cover victims deprived of Life, liberty, or property.

It was stated somewhere upthread that certain government employees acquire a property interest in their jobs under certain conditions. I find this preposterous, but that's the rationalization.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It was stated somewhere upthread that certain government employees acquire a property interest in their jobs under certain conditions. I find this preposterous, but that's the rationalization.

So, if they do, does their next of kin get the job? Is it taxed as inherritence? What value is put upon a "job"?

That's weird and stupid... Just another trick to get people in a position where they don't have to work for their paycheck.

 

[malern28us]

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.

If I would believe your logic.....
You get drunk at home. This violates your companies policy on alcohol and drug use at work.
You are now jobless because your workplace finds out you drink.
Please dont use to your logic to limit someone elses rights.
You have had too much Kool-aid.

 

[mrjarrell]

The republican darling governor of NJ is all on board with the guy being fired. LOL.

NJ Transit was right to can Koran-burning creep Derek Fenton, says Gov. Chris Christie

 

[Eddie]

It was stated somewhere upthread that certain government employees acquire a property interest in their jobs under certain conditions. I find this preposterous, but that's the rationalization.

The old rule was the "spoils of war" rule. An elected official could simply fire everyone under their control and appoint his cronies to fill the positions. There was a prevailing opinion that this helped promote corruption so a body of law grew up around when government employees can and cannot be fired. There is still a lot of litigation every year involving when an elected official can and cannot fire an employee. There are flaws and abuses available under both systems but the one that we currently have involves a lot of protections for government employees. I'm not saying its right or its best, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

Let me throw another monkey in the wrench. How's about when an elected official who is not a member of the legislative or executive violates an employee's civil rights? Wrap your mind around this one: Someone like a county auditor or treasurer is an elected official. No other office holder can tell them what to do. They can fire their employees even though it is a 100% violation of the employee's rights and guess what happens? The Board of Commissioners, the executive body, gets sued. That's right, one elected official can violate someone's rights and that person's remedy at law is to sue a different elected official. Not screwey enough yet eh? Well how about this: if the person wins their lawsuit who pays? The person who violated their rights? Nope. The person who got sued? Wrong again. If an elected official at the county level (not a commissioner or councilman) violates an employee's rights they don't get sued and if the commissioner's can't successfully defend the lawsuit the official who violated the person's rights doesn't pay either. The judgment goes to the council to pay. If there isn't enough in the county coffers to pay up then the council has to institute a special tax to pay the judgment. Yep, a tax, so that the taxpayers can pay rather than have the actual person who violated someone's rights pay up.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If I would believe your logic.....
You get drunk at home. This violates your companies policy on alcohol and drug use at work.
You are now jobless because your workplace finds out you drink.
Please dont use to your logic to limit someone elses rights.
You have had too much Kool-aid.

How did they find out you were drinking at home?

 

[malern28us]

You're working under the wrong assumptions.

The constitution is there to restrict government from making laws. That is the main and only purpose of the document.



It's not there to protect your job.

Laws that attempt to govern behavior are ineffectual.

The only laws necessary are those that cover victims deprived of Life, liberty, or property.

This would be true if the company would stay out of this persons personal business. Your job is a job. Nothing more nothing less. They do not control your life off "the clock."