I Thought This was Interesting

I Thought This was Interesting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 1:29:02 PM)
Article here I thought this was interesting on a couple of levels. Do I think she's a disrespectful piece of shit? Of course. Do I think she should have lost her job? Maybe, but probably not. This lady was cycling through the park when the president's motorcade went past her. By her own admissions, her "blood began to boil" and she's done this kind of thing, before. All the SJW inside of her came bubbling to the top and for the (fourth? Fifth? Sixth?) time, she let her feelings show. The photo went viral. Then, she was fired. You see, her employer is a government contractor so their earnings are dependent upon the government. In a way, she was flipping the bird to her boss. On those grounds, I'd fire her, too. She explained that *she* didn't post the photo to *her* social media. The photo was taken by a member of the white house press corps and was disseminated in a daily briefing. On those grounds, I wouldn't fire her. She goes on to say that she "couldn't believe" someone had seen her do it. In this instance, I compare it to the cop who has no idea who around him may record him doing something the least bit out of policy or, possibly even, illegal. When I add that into the mix, I'd fire her. Michael

MasterDrakk -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 1:37:06 PM)
so we dont want any gnashing and weeping of teeth when the government contract corruption starts coming up frothy. He is absolutely responsible solely and wholly. I am sure the lady could give a fuck, she will be rehired before she leaves for the day. But keep supporting that free speech.

DaddySatyr -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 1:39:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk so we dont want any gnashing and weeping of teeth when the government contract corruption starts coming up frothy. He is absolutely responsible solely and wholly. I am sure the lady could give a fuck, she will be rehired before she leaves for the day. But keep supporting that free speech. I do support free speech. This lady isn't in jail. The 1st Amendment saves the day! I'm sure the lady could give a fuck, too. It's a nice job.

MasterDrakk -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 1:43:08 PM)
no, it sort of violates the first amendment, the government has in effect created a law here. there is nothing in that amendment about incarceration. Yeah, she'll have a better one before she hits the bike rack.

DaddySatyr -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 1:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk no, it sort of violates the first amendment, the government has in effect created a law here. there is nothing in that amendment about incarceration. Yeah, she'll have a better one before she hits the bike rack. No it does *not* violate the 1st Amendment. Her employer fired her and the government hasn't charged, convicted, or incarcerated her. Here, let me help you out: quote: 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. So congress (or the state or local governments) has made no law, abridging her freedom of speech. Case closed. God bless America!

bounty44 -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 1:58:53 PM)
Michael---am leaning towards thinking this is mnottertroll.

DaddySatyr -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 2:02:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 Michael---am leaning towards thinking this is mnottertroll. When I see the words: "putinjizz", "felch", "Felchgobble" or, he insults the memory of my son, I might buy in. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Actually, I think her employer should have backed her as long as possible, until there was some indication that her actions were endangering their contracts. I also feel like her employer is free not to do so. You? Peace, Michael

bounty44 -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 2:08:26 PM)
those are obvious telltale signs yes, but ive seen a handful of other, lesser ones on three threads. I think its a stretch from blow-up/meltdown to losing ones government contract and that a firing is way too pre-emptive in that regard. however, if the place has a sort of "conduct" expectation as a part of employment, that's another story.

DaddySatyr -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 2:10:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 those are obvious telltale signs yes, but ive seen a handful of other, lesser ones. I think its a stretch from blow-up/meltdown to losing ones government contract and that a firing is way too pre-emptive. That's where I sit, but I don't think the company was necessarily "out of line". I just wish companies would exhibit the amount of loyalty they seem to demand from employees. Peace, Michael

MasterDrakk -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 2:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk no, it sort of violates the first amendment, the government has in effect created a law here. there is nothing in that amendment about incarceration. Yeah, she'll have a better one before she hits the bike rack. No it does *not* violate the 1st Amendment. Her employer fired her and the government hasn't charged, convicted, or incarcerated her. Here, let me help you out: quote: 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. So congress (or the state or local governments) has made no law, abridging her freedom of speech. Case closed. God bless America! I expect that the ACLU will say the same and there will be a nice little bonus in her xmas pay from that same company.

bounty44 -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 2:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 those are obvious telltale signs yes, but ive seen a handful of other, lesser ones. I think its a stretch from blow-up/meltdown to losing ones government contract and that a firing is way too pre-emptive. That's where I sit, but I don't think the company was necessarily "out of line". I just wish companies would exhibit the amount of loyalty they seem to demand from employees. Peace, Michael I have been on the short end of that stick an unfortunate few times.

MrRodgers -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 3:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk no, it sort of violates the first amendment, the government has in effect created a law here. there is nothing in that amendment about incarceration. Yeah, she'll have a better one before she hits the bike rack. No it does *not* violate the 1st Amendment. Her employer fired her and the government hasn't charged, convicted, or incarcerated her. Here, let me help you out: quote: 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. So congress (or the state or local governments) has made no law, abridging her freedom of speech. Case closed. God bless America! Rather, it is her employer who is acting on his power to fire at will, (as far as I know) thus exacting his payback via what does seem a rather political statement and not one for incompetence. She has the right to flip-off the pres., [he] has the right to fire her. I think the woman was really shocked as most people sometimes still are, how quickly it went viral. I am sure Michael also knows that her antics weren't going to change any existing govt. contracts or in any way, influence the govt. on any future considerations by the govt. It is a bubbling brew of a coming problem for a free society that sanctifies our 1st. amend. in its protections from govt. but disregards and provides no protection for the peoples right of speech and expression...from the power of the employer. How about when employers get to tell employees who to vote for...or they are fired ? How about when that happens on all levels of govt. ? Yes, how about all of those other 'democratic' ideas ? Oh and BTW, I know what you mean Michael, I've actually socially when living back east just outside DC., run into literally dozens of those 'disrespectful piece(s) of shit' for every one of Obama's 8 years. What's really amusing but not really funny ? Most of their ire was over some of the craziest shit and all lies about Obama, his family and friends etc., just believing what they want to believe. The rest of course and plenty of them...was pure unabashed, even often outspoken racism.

kdsub -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 4:00:22 PM)
People should realize that their words have consequences even though they have the right to say them. Butch

Wayward5oul -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 4:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub People should realize that their words have consequences even though they have the right to say them. Butch Exactly.

JVoV -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 4:43:32 PM)
And employers should realize that there may be legislation to protect their employees from termination. If you object to illegal discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination. She'll lawyer up quickly, I think.

Wayward5oul -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 4:56:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And employers should realize that there may be legislation to protect their employees from termination. If you object to illegal discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination. She'll lawyer up quickly, I think. But how can her actions be interpreted as objecting to discrimination? She is flipping someone off. For all we know, she just can't stand his hair. I doubt that's the case, but there is no context to give clear meaning.

bounty44 -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 5:03:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And employers should realize that there may be legislation to protect their employees from termination. If you object to illegal discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination. She'll lawyer up quickly, I think. from the article: quote: Virginia is an employment-at-will state, meaning employers can fire people anytime and for any reason.

DesideriScuri -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 5:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Article here I thought this was interesting on a couple of levels. Do I think she's a disrespectful piece of shit? Of course. Do I think she should have lost her job? Maybe, but probably not. This lady was cycling through the park when the president's motorcade went past her. By her own admissions, her "blood began to boil" and she's done this kind of thing, before. All the SJW inside of her came bubbling to the top and for the (fourth? Fifth? Sixth?) time, she let her feelings show. The photo went viral. Then, she was fired. You see, her employer is a government contractor so their earnings are dependent upon the government. In a way, she was flipping the bird to her boss. On those grounds, I'd fire her, too. She explained that *she* didn't post the photo to *her* social media. The photo was taken by a member of the white house press corps and was disseminated in a daily briefing. On those grounds, I wouldn't fire her. She goes on to say that she "couldn't believe" someone had seen her do it. In this instance, I compare it to the cop who has no idea who around him may record him doing something the least bit out of policy or, possibly even, illegal. When I add that into the mix, I'd fire her. Michael If the article is correct and that she was fired for violating the social media policy for lewd and/or obscene things in her profile, and her anecdote about a male coworker's post on a social network are also true, I think she has a strong case for a lawsuit against her employer. I would have a tough time keeping her on, though, if that's how she's going to react to the President when my business depends on government contracts.

DesideriScuri -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 5:40:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And employers should realize that there may be legislation to protect their employees from termination. If you object to illegal discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination. She'll lawyer up quickly, I think. But how can her actions be interpreted as objecting to discrimination? She is flipping someone off. For all we know, she just can't stand his hair. I doubt that's the case, but there is no context to give clear meaning. Could go back to the reasoning she was given for being fired: lewd or obscene things on social network. If her anecdote about a male co-worker having had a lewd or obscene thing on his social network is true, then her employer discriminated against her. I think she'd win a case on those merits.

JVoV -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/6/2017 5:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And employers should realize that there may be legislation to protect their employees from termination. If you object to illegal discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, age, or some other protected status, you are protected against retaliation by Title VII, the federal law prohibiting discrimination. She'll lawyer up quickly, I think. from the article: quote: Virginia is an employment-at-will state, meaning employers can fire people anytime and for any reason. Federal law still applies, regardless of State laws. And to answer Wayward, it would simply be a matter of asking her. Why was she tracked down and named though?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625