Look again.
Today's corporate-collectivist "culture" is infested with "conservative" { uhh } "but progressive" serpents.
If their favorite color wasn't Jesuit Orange - it would be lavender or a rainbow...
Right Comrade-MarxBanksters?
Posted on 08/14/2017 4:42:52 AM PDT by Skywise
A white nationalist was fired from his job after Twitter users began naming and shaming alt-right supporters involved in yesterday's deadly Charlottesville rally.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
No, they violate anti-discrimination laws.
Look again.
Today's corporate-collectivist "culture" is infested with "conservative" { uhh } "but progressive" serpents.
If their favorite color wasn't Jesuit Orange - it would be lavender or a rainbow...
Right Comrade-MarxBanksters?
The point here is that a precedent has been set requiring private companies to comply with "equal protection" requirements of the Constitution.
If it is acceptable to force private companies to comply with one Amendment to the Federal Constitution, then it seems that it should be acceptable to force private companies to comply with the other amendments too.
The ACLU made the case in the example of the Illinois Nazis way back in the 1970s, I think. They lost a lot of support for doing so, but they saw it as a necessary consistency of their position, and so they ended up doing it, and they won.
In Europe they have 25 different parties. The argument that protection must be restricted to only two parties is itself discriminatory and arbitrary.
Personally I don't give a D@mn what happens to @$$holes that go to Nazi type rallies, but as a matter of application of the law, I don't see how you can exclude them from protection just because they are bad people.
If we allow people to have the protection of the law removed from them because they are "bad", what are we going to do when the shapers of public opinion declare that Christians are "bad"?
They supported the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie. They didn't defend any Nazi from being fired, and nobody prevented the Nazis from marching in Charlottesville.
Personally I don't give a D@mn what happens to @$$holes that go to Nazi type rallies, but as a matter of application of the law, I don't see how you can exclude them from protection just because they are bad people.
The police should have maintained order. But someone on the news this morning saying that the protestors on both sides had better body armor and shielding than the local cops did and were armed with a variety of weapons. Perhaps the people deserving of criticism are those who so poorly prepared for the possibility of violence breaking out and didn't take adequate steps to prevent it?
Truth is an ultimate defense in a defamation case.
He’s an at-will employee.
He’s got nothing.
Maybe they need to form a Nazi Union.
But does not allow them to discriminate.
Northwestern University Associate Professor Arthur Butz recently issued a statement commending Iranian President Ahmadinejad's assertion that the Holocaust never happened. Butz is a Holocaust denier who has made similar assertions previously. His latest statement, like his earlier writings and pronouncements, is a contemptible insult to all decent and feeling people. While I hope everyone understands that Butz's opinions are his own and in no way represent the views of the University or me personally, his reprehensible opinions on this issue are an embarrassment to Northwestern.There is no question that the Holocaust is a well-documented historical fact. The University has a professorship in Holocaust Studies endowed by the Holocaust Educational Foundation. Northwestern offers courses in Holocaust Studies and organizes conferences of academic scholars who teach in areas relating to the Holocaust. In addition, Northwestern hosts a summer Institute for Holocaust and Jewish Civilization. And most recently, a fellowship in the political science department has been established in my name by the Holocaust Educational Foundation. In short, Northwestern University has contributed significantly to the scholarly research of the Holocaust and remains committed to doing so.
Butz is a tenured associate professor in electrical engineering. Like all faculty members, he is entitled to express his personal views, including on his personal web pages, as long as he does not represent such opinions as the views of the University. Butz has made clear that his opinions are his own and at no time has he discussed those views in class or made them part of his class curriculum. Therefore, we cannot take action based on the content of what Butz says regarding the Holocaust - however odious it may be - without undermining the vital principle of intellectual freedom that all academic institutions serve to protect.
Henry S. Bienen
President[7]
My recollection is that the issue wasn't decided as much on the fact that NU was an academic institution, whose reputation could clearly suffer both from Butz's opinions and from censoring them, but the fact that Butz carefully never addressed the topic in class, or in the context of his role as a Northwestern Professor. Despite the fact that his status was known to his Nazi fans. He was even allowed to post links on his personal university website.
Seems to me that unless this 20 year old is expressing his opinions to fellow workers or customers, he has a legitimate action against his employer.
Of course the Butz controversy is now four decades old. Not sure liberals or liberal institutions, academic or otherwise, have the same concerns about speech they did then.
They proved that you could not discriminate against people who have ideas with which most people disagree. They effectively argued that they are entitled to protections of the law, the same as approved groups.
If that is established as "precedent", (and this case was decided by the US Supreme Court) it becomes hard to argue that the same protection of the law can be ignored in other cases, such as employment law.
The police should have maintained order. But someone on the news this morning saying that the protestors on both sides had better body armor and shielding than the local cops did and were armed with a variety of weapons. Perhaps the people deserving of criticism are those who so poorly prepared for the possibility of violence breaking out and didn't take adequate steps to prevent it?
I have read commentary that said the Mayor and other officials left orders that made violence unavoidable. I've read that when the police broke up the gathering, they had the Nationalists march through the AntiFa areas. I have also read that the police had orders not to get involved, and so they let small fights and scuffles grow into worse altercations.
Some people have suggested that all of this was done to help insure confrontations between the groups for the purposes of revving up the liberal base and undermining Trump's election chances by blaming him for the Nationalists.
On the basis of race, but they can apparently discriminate on the basis of creed.
I don't think the argument that you can do this will pass muster in a court that is applying the law consistently. But who knows nowadays? The law is a big crapshoot, and it may or may not mean what it says.
It depends on what judge you get.
Freedom of association. You DON'T have to do business with those whom you disagree.
Unless it's a gay couple who wants you to bake them a cake...
They don't. Back when they were concerned about "free speech", it was because their speech and their ideas were very much despised by the public. Now that they have the upper hand, they no longer have need of the fiction that they were concerned about equality regarding freedom of speech.
Every day you see another example of Liberals trying to censor or inhibit speech of others with whom they disagree.
It was just a tactic to help them get into power.
His name was “Cole White”?
Maybe he just got confused and thought the “White Unity” rally was his family reunion?
/sarc
“Truth is an ultimate defense in a defamation case.”
So someone holding a light at a vigil is a thug? You have a strange perception of “truth”.
The twitter feed that “busted” him is a pic of him as described above.
Lots of states allow a person to be fired by employer whim. I support those laws. I think employment AND purchases should be done by free will - that you should be able to deny service or employment to anyone for any reason.
“Truth is an ultimate defense in a defamation case.”
So someone holding a light at a vigil is a thug? You have a strange perception of “truth”.
The twitter feed that “busted” him is a pic of him as described above.
Someone marching in a Nazi rally is probably a Nazi.
I would not employ a Nazi, but I’m a little odd that way.
(And, really, we’re sensitive to the word “thug” now? I thought we mocked Snowflakes. Apparently, we are all snowflakes now).
Good Peanuts cartoon. That pretty much sums it up when you compare the social ‘permission’ for one race to be proud as compared to another’s.
JoMa
My concern is we are seeing the rise of the Thought Police with enforcement through coercing employers to fire someone for whatever they believe in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.