Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-30-2018, 06:57 PM
 
1,369 posts, read 2,138,042 times
Reputation: 1649

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Your premise is false. Skin color is the least of race and being a black or white American. By your grammar I can tell you are a foreigner. White American females are very accustomed to being around blacks and essentially never just confront them for just being black. There is almost always something more at play.
The fact that you just reduced a group of people by the race of their skin is more than enough to know that you really don't think racism exists, see black people as inferior, and are okay with white people mistreating black people. IMO, that is shameful and I would suggest you self-reflect as to why you think it is acceptable for a white person to behave the way that woman on the video behaved. She clearly was being inflammatory.

One doesn't have to say the "n-word" to be a racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
37,162 posts, read 41,357,088 times
Reputation: 45251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
What a confused response. "Bigoted" speech is free speech and relates to the 1st amendment. If an employer fired you because you have a gun in your home, that would be infringing your 2nd amendment. If an employer required that you allow them to search your home or car or bank account to make sure you're not stealing anything that would be infringing on your 4th amendment, etc.

My point is we wouldn't want employee or school "Code of conduct" rules to violate our rights in general so we shouldn't want it violating our number 1 and 1st constitutional rights.
No, the First Amendment applies only to the government. The government cannot arrest you for criticizing the government. The First Amendment does not protect you from getting fired if your employer does not like what you said. You are free to say whatever you want to. That does not mean you are protected by the First Amendment for the consequences of what you say.

Civics 101.

When has an employer fired someone for having a firearm at home? Case report?

An employer could not require you to allow a search of your home or car or to share your financial records. If he thought you were stealing he would have to make a police report, and the police could get a warrant for such a search.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:22 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,894,678 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
No, the First Amendment applies only to the government. The government cannot arrest you for criticizing the government. The First Amendment does not protect you from getting fired if your employer does not like what you said. You are free to say whatever you want to. That does not mean you are protected by the First Amendment for the consequences of what you say.

Civics 101.

When has an employer fired someone for having a firearm at home? Case report?

An employer could not require you to allow a search of your home or car or to share your financial records. If he thought you were stealing he would have to make a police report, and the police could get a warrant for such a search.
My point is a government actor is not allowed to put restriction on speech, it doesn't mean a private actor should, and often for political reasons maybe on behalf of the government, just because they could. It's not a noble thing to do or in accordance with liberty.

But so you see how you advocate for private actors to infringe 1st amendment rights, but only the government can invade your privacy? Why can't private employers and schools invade your privacy since they're not the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
37,162 posts, read 41,357,088 times
Reputation: 45251
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
My point is a government actor is not allowed to put restriction on speech, it doesn't mean a private actor should, and often for political reasons maybe on behalf of the government, just because they could. It's not a noble thing to do or in accordance with liberty.
A "private actor" cannot do anything "for political reasons maybe on behalf of the government".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:28 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,894,678 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
A "private actor" cannot do anything "for political reasons maybe on behalf of the government".
Yeah sure they can't be cajoled or bribed or let's say encouraged . There's already an incestuous relationship between corporations and the government. Plenty of "private actors" are political.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
13,480 posts, read 8,406,838 times
Reputation: 25953
A person's constitutional rights don't always extend to their place of employment. For example if you work at a school, they can fire you for bringing firearms into the building. Your "right to bear arms" is irrelevant in school zones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 10:33 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,894,678 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla View Post
A person's constitutional rights don't always extend to their place of employment. For example if you work at a school, they can fire you for bringing firearms into the building. Your "right to bear arms" is irrelevant in school zones.
Employers are firing people for things said on the employee's own time and own property or at least not the employer's property. No matter how you want to justify it, I reject the principle and the basis.

I reject PCism and banning or censoring speech when it first was pushed by activist because I intuitively sensed that leftist had the following play strategy:

Step 1. Ban, censor "racist/hateful" speech.

Step 2. Label any speech you want banned/censored as "racist/hateful".


I didn't agree to give leftist and interests groups this authority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 10:59 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,230 posts, read 16,561,742 times
Reputation: 9175
Good. Being a scumbag should make life really difficult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 11:07 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,230 posts, read 16,561,742 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Employers are firing people for things said on the employee's own time and own property or at least not the employer's property. No matter how you want to justify it, I reject the principle and the basis.

I reject PCism and banning or censoring speech when it first was pushed by activist because I intuitively sensed that leftist had the following play strategy:

Step 1. Ban, censor "racist/hateful" speech.

Step 2. Label any speech you want banned/censored as "racist/hateful".


I didn't agree to give leftist and interests groups this authority.
You don't actually have a say. Free speech allows us to label your venom as anything we damn well please. But there is no such thing as censorship in America. You can speak. The government can't stop you, but citizens don't have to tolerate it. Still, when you get your teeth knocked out, you can get back up and thpeak again. Wash, rinth, repeat. 1A.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 11:30 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,894,678 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheChocolate View Post
You don't actually have a say. Free speech allows us to label your venom as anything we damn well please. But there is no such thing as censorship in America. You can speak. The government can't stop you, but citizens don't have to tolerate it. Still, when you get your teeth knocked out, you can get back up and thpeak again. Wash, rinth, repeat. 1A.
That's a two way street, and I'll and others will label any speech we disagree with as we please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top