Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only color that matters to businesses is green. No sane employer would allow that to be endangered by being associated with skinheads or any other racist, especially those associated with violent groups.
Are you talking about the stupid anarchist morons that ruined some peaceful protests with their destructive behaviors (you should know that they basically just took over the protests to break things and really had no interest in the movement/protest)?
If an employer felt these people were damaging their brand or violating some employee agreements, then they'd have a case to fire them, too. Just like the companies firing these White Nationalist/Supremacists.
Then again, they might reach a different conclusion since WS movements are viewed far more negatively than the Occupy Protests (for good reason, by the way). I personally would fire someone openly attending WS events - how could I ever trust them to work effectively with a non-white person? Talk about a liability...
Someone attending an Occupy protest? As long as they were peaceful, I would see no issue there (although, if they were one of the stupid masked anarchists - I might fire them).
A different employer might disagree with me, since it is their company (but again...it shouldn't be a surprising when they're not treated equally.
Yes, I'm talking about anarchists who only seem to show up at left wing rallies like Occupy and BLM with masks to destroy property and inflect bodily harm
A person's ability to keep their job should be based on their performance not their politics.
In the Soviet Union you needed to be in the Communist party to get a job. In Fascist Italy you needed to be a member of the Fascist party in order to be employed. A man was forced out of his job in Berkeley California because he was on the wrong side in the protest.
How much difference is there between the social justice warriors and the authoritarians that I named above.
Tell it to the Republicans who have ensured that workers in America have no rights whatsoever.
Yes, I'm talking about anarchists who only seem to show up at left wing rallies like Occupy and BLM with masks to destroy property and inflect bodily harm
Yeah, they're morons. Won't get any arguments from me there. I'd probably fire one of them, too, if I knew they were being violent or destroying property (some of the anarchists that were in some of the Oakland Occupy marches really pissed me off...).
An ordinary Occupy or BLM member, though? Probably not.
Yes, I'm talking about anarchists who only seem to show up at left wing rallies like Occupy and BLM with masks to destroy property and inflect bodily harm
I don't think masks should be allowed. If you can't show your face ~ you probably shouldn't be there and that goes for all of them.
Private employers and employees should be able to negotiate these issues minus involuntary 3rd party intervention (government).
I'm somewhat torn on what happened here with the doxing of the protesters. The spirit of putting pressure on their employers to not associate with certain folks is something I really embrace because I don't want State-intervention.
Having said that, we live in an involuntary State where doxing protesters is little more than a "feel good" action because under statism the mechanisms are not and cannot be put in place to effectively shun and punish folks who do deplorable things.
I find Nazis, the KKK, BLM, and Anifa to be repugnant piles of crap. Yet if I'm a barber I must cut their hair. If I'm a hotel owner I must rent them a room. If I'm dentist I must fill their cavities.
My hope is people start to understand that the only way to effectively change behaviors without the use of force and not infringing on the rights of others is to allow all of us have complete control over the fruits of our labor.
4th amendment? That has to do with due process and search warrants, are you sure you don't mean the 1st amendment
No I meant the 4th. A private person or employer can't just search you since they wouldn't be the government doing it without a warrant. But the argument is just that when it's the 1st amendment.
A person's ability to keep their job should be based on their performance not their politics.
In the Soviet Union you needed to be in the Communist party to get a job. In Fascist Italy you needed to be a member of the Fascist party in order to be employed. A man was forced out of his job in Berkeley California because he was on the wrong side in the protest.
How much difference is there between the social justice warriors and the authoritarians that I named above.
So employers should tolerate employees who will potentially cost them business? So you are advocating for guaranteed jobs. Sounds pretty communist to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where did occupy participants claim their protest was about "pride"?
