Posted on 07/18/2015 7:09:19 PM PDT by markomalley
A high-ranking California police lieutenant has been placed on leave after he sent a newspaper a letter condemning the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide. He signed the letter with his rank and employer — and the newspaper editor says that's how he wanted it to appear in print.
In a letter to the editor of the Stockton Record, Stockton Police Lt. Toby Will called legal same-sex marriage "blatant debauchery." The letter, titled "Marriage ruling shuns God," was posted online on July 7.
The Stockton Record then printed an article headlined "Cop's letter sparks concern." It quoted police spokesman Joe Silva as saying Will "does not speak for the Police Department, and regarding his use of his police position, it is under administrative review."
Silva told NBC News that Will was officially placed on paid administrative leave on July 13, pending the outcome of the review.
The following day, the editor of the paper, Mike Klocke, wrote a lengthy response to questions the paper had received about printing the letter. He said Will was adamant that he wanted his official title to be printed if the letter was published.
Police chief Eric Jones told NBC affiliate KCRA that part of the investigation into Will's actions while he is on leave will focus on whether the lieutenant purposefully misrepresented the view of the entire department "because of the indication that it may have purported that it was the statement of the police department."
Jones visited the San Joaquin Pride Center with other Stockton officers on Thursday night to assure attendees that the Stockton Police Department is accepting. "We are responsible for treating everyone fairly and equitably — and that's what tonight was all about," Jones said at the meeting.
Renee Hall, president of the board for Pride Center, said she was "shocked" when she first read the letter. "I feel like if something like that gets out in the public from a pretty prominent person, then it gives folks the ability to act on those things," she told KCRA.
The Stockton Record printed several letters from readers responding to Will. Some readers supported his opinion, but disagreed with his choice to make them known in a public forum, while others supported his view and his choice to speak out. Others wholeheartedly disagreed with Will.
"I resent this man with real authority insinuating his law enforcement position into this discussion," one reader wrote.
Alberta’s Child,
Any other examples of “ridiculous / dangerous conditions” besides:
“Mohammed can’t bring in his prayer rug into my office and bend his @ss five times a day...”
EEOC and "reasonable accommodation.
Ha ha ha ha!
You forgot the < /s > tag...
Tat is all still a personal inference.
The Constitutional prohibitions were intended and are understood to apply to and restrict government, not to private companies and concerns.
Constitutional restrictions have always be understood to limit possible abuses by government. NO ONE ELSE.
Asinine comparison!
No one has claimed that the officer wrote his letter during working hours or on Police Department property.
Are you homotaedetic?
Taedetic = disgust, loathing
(much different from “irrational fear”)
horseshit - we, to a man disparaged Jimmy Carter regularly in our squadron - every single day. Don't believe the line that active duty military don't harshly criticize politicians. It's simply not true. What are they gonna do, take away your birthday? F them
Not given by the Creator?
Not Freedom of speech.
According to our founding documents, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are endowed by the Creator.
Rights in the Constitution are entreated by the binding document, and are supreme (supposedly)above all subsequent laws, and to be used in deciding what laws could be enacted on the US.
Freedom of speech can not be deemed endowed by the Creator as it’s not absolute. You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire, to use a lame example. You can be charged with several crimes depending on the outcome of your actions. Freedom of Speech wont trump that.
Also remember, the Constitution can be altered. You might wake up one day and find that 2/3 of the states have decided that one of the Amendments doesn’t work any longer.
No person or people can strip you of a right said to be endowed upon us by the Creator under US law.
As for King Corp, well me as a small business owner, and you as my employee enter a contract. You have needs (to be paid, benefits, etc.). I tell you at the beginning of the contract that my rule is you don’t speak to the press, or at any public venue (give speech) that mentions my company without my permission. If you violate the terms of our contract (agreement). You are terminated. Our contract is dissolved. That doesn’t mean I’ve violated any of your rights, you can go on National TV and tell the world anything you want, but if you use my company in your statement then you’ve violated the contract. I’m not taking away any rights from you by firing you. You have the right to find another job.
The Bill of Rights is absolute, not subject to Amendment or interpretation.
Huh?
2/3 of the states can add or repeal any amendment at any time.
That’s why women vote, why we’re not still under prohibition, why the President can only serve 2 terms, etc.
If I send a letter to the editor, giving my position and place of work expressing concern about a safety issue as an engineer,
That’s fine. You have every right to do that.
I also have the right to fire you.
Other than Unions, employment is an agreement between the employee, and employer. If you violate my rules, I can and will fire you. You can go on every channel and in every newspaper. After you’re fired I’m not imprisoning or torturing you, you have the right to seek employment elsewhere. In no way am I restricting your right to speak.
The Constitutional prohibitions were intended and are understood to apply to and restrict government, not to private companies and concerns.
That’s exactly right.
As a private business I can enact the rules as I see fit. Your right to free speech doesn’t extend to our employment agreement.
Try this for an example. Every high tech firm, restaurant, etc., make you sign a non disclosure agreement.
Now if go out and publish my recipe for my rib rub in the paper, you definitely have the right under the first amendment to do that. However you better grab your wallet with both hands, because not only am I going to fire you, I am going to sue you to your skivvies.
we, to a man disparaged Jimmy Carter regularly in our squadron - every single day. Don’t believe the line that active duty military don’t harshly criticize politicians. It’s simply not true. What are they gonna do, take away your birthday? F them
Bet you didn’t do it in the paper, or on tv.
Addressing your first point about what is given to us by our Creator:
The broad terms “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” are further delineated and expanded upon in the Bill of Rights.
These rights deal with government and limit it.
Then the subsequent laws that are based on the Bill of Rights, deal with individuals, non government situations, employer-employee relations, and the like.
And the laws have their roots in God’s law; that was the background of the new nation’s Founders.
So it all is connected, —all— of those rights in the Bill of Rights, the laws that align with God’s, everything, is —inalienable— i.e. inseperable from the person.
As to your second point about not talking to the press or giving a speech that mentions the company, unless permission is granted:
If a company owner treats the employees fairly, does not break the law*, and does not give the employee any reason to go to the press complaining, then there is no problem on that score.
Same goes for giving a speech; if the company conducts its business in accordance with the law*, honors people’s God-given rights, and does not infringe upon them, then there would be no reason for the employee to go around giving speeches against the company.
*’law’ in the above two examples is taken to mean the law that is in accordance with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the legal codes that align with God’s law.
In the latter case of the legal codes, distinction had to be made concerning ‘alignment’, due to the recent twisting of the laws by the SCOTUS.
If the company doesn’t cut corners, doesn’t create an unsafe work environment, and —does— address safety concerns brought up by employees when they mention it in meetings, and take care of the unsafe condition as soon as possible, then it lessens the chance of an incident and subsequent questions by the press.
See this where I think we disagree. Our Freedom of speech, Right to bear arms, etc, can be taken from us legally by 2/3 vote of the states. They are referred to as the Bill of Rights, but they are amendments, and as such are at risk.
The 3 mentioned in the Declaration can’t be removed except by the one(God) who gave them to us.
That’s where I see the distinction between two.
I agree that the Constitution has at it’s root God’s law, beyond that I believe the founders took the 3 from the Declaration, and said let’s apply them to every day life.
You are also correct in stating that I have to run my company within the law, however even if I don’t there are remedies in place for that, and most result in the employee losing their job anyway (speaking as a small business owner).
The difference between that and what this cop did are vast.
The employee/employer agreement is a basic contract, written or verbal. I have terms, and the employee has terms. One of my terms is if you speak to the press you can’t use the company name without my permission. Imagine the opposite of what happened here, and the employee writes a letter to the editor espousing the joys of sex with animals, kids etc., and then signs it with the name of my company. I can’t imagine anyone having a problem with me firing the employee for that. Plain and simple he violated our agreement. I’m not restricting his free speech as he can that very second go to the nearest tv station and further explain his love of sheep. If he uses the name of my company at this time then I would address my grievance in civil court. However I have still not infringed upon his free speech rights except as they now violate slander statutes. At this point the court steps in with the remedy. He’s still free to preach sheep love, but not use my company name to promote the action.
They just want to be treated like everyone else....yeah.
I think some of them don’t believe it. Like the guy posing in this video. I was looking at Bible Prophecy videos and this one was in the YT sidebar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syWmHYJ6j8
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.