Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More Anti-gun nonsense in Tulsa

Discussion in 'Activism' started by RoadkingLarry, Feb 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    You seem to think that the designation "crap" is one that can be legally proven to some objective standard, which betrays some very fundamental misunderstandings. I can say that I think some product is, in my opinion, "crap". As a personal qualitative evaluation it is neither "true" nor "false" in any subjective sense, and so notions of "proof", "slander", et al simply do not apply.

    If you seriously believe that such an action would not give your employer justifiable cause for dismissal then you're living in a fantasy world.

    But you still didn't answer my question. If you took the action I described - and it was an honest expression of your opinion about the products your comany sells - does the U.S. Constitution provide you with legal protection against being fired by your employer?
     
  2. Rabid Rabbit

    Rabid Rabbit Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    464
    Wineocerus,
    Please reread the second sentence of my answer. Yep most products can be measured by an objective standard, everybody pretty much knows crap when they see it. Juries decide that question all the time so do a number of organizations.

    Obviously you're definition of crap is different than mine, so we would go to court after you fired me. I would demonstrate that your product is indeed crap and win the case you would owe me big bucks and I'll laugh all the way to the bank.

    I'm sure you can "what if" your scenario all day long as can I but, the short answer is the First Amendment would protect me as long as I was telling the truth and the constitution set up the framework to take you to court. Do I have the resources to take the employer to court and win, yes or no? If yes then I win if not then I cannot then I may get my rights trampled on fired and find another job.

    Now come back from your trip around the barn and get back on point with the thread.

    Here read this: I believe honestly answering a question and identifying the product as crap would likely come under whistle blower which is protected. Yes sexual harrasment etc... are not and should not.
    http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Sep/30/133065.html
     
  3. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    462
    TwitchaLot,
    You failed to read in my post where I distinguish between a place of business and a residence. Read it again and then feel free to comment on what I posted, not on what you think I posted. Even if they are an employer and I am an employee, I am still conducting BUSINESS. Namely, I am offering a service and they are paying for it. I am not there to visit.

    357WheelGun,
    The property I refer to is REAL ESTATE, not property such as lawnmowers, widgets,etc. There ARE specific federal laws that state you may not discriminate based on race/religion etc. as far as to whom you sell property (read: real estate).

    I will make no more posts on the matter, seeing as how this is "activism"
     
  4. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    A Microsoft sales rep tells a customer, "I think Outlook is crap as a newsreader."

    Legally objective fact...or subjective opinion?

    And right here you demonstrate that your understanding of the Bill of Rights is deeply flawed.

    I am on point. I'm trying to get you to understand the underlying principle at work in this topic and your assertions regarding it. That you're going out of your way to resist that understanding does not make me off point.

    OK. I read it. Did you? If so, did you make it all the way to the 2nd paragraph?:

    "No Constitutional Freedom of Speech in the Private Sector

    Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces."


    And your assertion regarding "whistleblower" protection indicates that you need to do some reading on the meaning of that term in this context.
     
  5. Rabid Rabbit

    Rabid Rabbit Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    464
    I guess this is why we have the court system to address disagreements. :neener:
    Given the few facts you gave in your "what if" world I had my version of events, you had yours.

    "I think Outlook is crap as a newsreader." When I back opinion with fact yes outlook is crap. And I seriously doubt that there is a MS employee that can say otherwise with a straight face.
     
  6. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    OK. If you're just going to bail out on the matter when faced with questions you can't address then it would save us both time and effort if you abstained from the debate in the first place.
     
  7. TwitchALot

    TwitchALot Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    California
    The ironic part is that it is you who failed to read my post. That's exactly what I addressed. You want protection for residences, but not businesses, even though both can be private property. Which brings me back to what I said earlier- the mentality that almost everyone believes in something until it doesn't suit them. Certain private property is more equal than other private property, of course. It's not okay to tell you what to do on your private property, but it's okay to tell someone else what to do on their private property.

    I also mention that people try to distinguish businesses from residences because businesses "serve the public," so they say, but this is false. Many businesses and residences are private property. You insist that businesses are different, and it's okay to force them, who do things on their private property, to follow certain laws and regulations, but it's not okay to force people, who do things on their private property (people in a private residence) to follow certain laws and regulations. Why?
     
  8. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    Well, if a member of the DNC said he thought Republicans were correct on the economy and on all moral issues, even if done is a respectable manner, said staffer would be fired.

    Ash
     
  9. anotherjohndoe

    anotherjohndoe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4
    Please cancel your NRA membership and join the Brady bunch.

    It's sad and shameful to see that anyone here among us would be willing to sacrifice their (and everyone else's) 2A rights and basic tools for self-defense in return for the privilege to earn an honest living and the opportunity to feed and house their families. No one should be allowed to coerce anyone to disarm themselves while traveling to and from an employer.
     
  10. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    462
    Twitchalot,
    Since you asked, I will comment one more time. Are you telling me that the only place that Constitutional rights have any place is on public property??? So my CHL should only be valid if I'm in a park???

    What if I'm on a privately owned toll-road??? Do the owners of said toll-road get to tell me what I can have in my car????

    You DO have freedom of speech at work. If I say "I support Hillary Clinton, etc." at work during a conversation, I cannot be fired for that. I CAN be fired if I jump up on my desk and scream "I support Hillary Clinton" and disrupt work in the process. By the same token, having a gun on my person at work might cause a disruption. I don't feel it causes a disruption if it is locked in a vehicle out in a parking lot. Do employers get to tell me I can't have a hammer in my car?? A knife??? Dirty underwear??? Do they get to deny me habeas corpus?? Do I have to practice Judaism on their property?? Can they force me into slavery???

    Just because I own the real estate you're standing on does not mean I get to declare myself emperor/king/supreme ruler of said property and the rule-maker for all that goes on there!!! If this were the case, OSHA wouldn't be able to enforce regulations on privately owned businesses. By doing business, you open yourself to a different set of rules!
     
  11. budiceman

    budiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    SE Minnesota
    Here they cant say anything about it in the vehicle! In the building is another story!
    How else are you to protect yourself on the way to and from work?
     
  12. TwitchALot

    TwitchALot Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    California
    "Rights" have place on private property should the owner allow it. If I own a business and I want people CCWing (and some do), that's fine. The real question is, do you have a right to be on someone else's property without permission?

    I say no, you say yes. And yet, you will probably insist I don't have a right to be in your home without your permission. But when it comes to businesses, it's okay? Come on. If you don't have a right to be on my private property to begin with, what makes you think you have the right to do what you want on my private property?

    No. But they should be able to decide whether you can use their road or not. If they say you cannot use their road if you have firearms in the car, you do not have permission to use their road, and you would be trespassing if you were caught.

    You probably won't be caught in such a situation of course, unless you agreed to let them search your vehicle, but again, is it okay for me to bust into your house if I think I won't get caught? Should I be able to park on your driveway without your permission?

    I'm not concerned with how things are. I'm concerned with how things should be.

    No. But they should get to stipulate whether you can park on their private lots or not. If you have guns in your car and your employer says you can't park on their lot if you have guns in your car, park somewhere else. If you choose to park on their lot anyway, you are trespassing. You may not get caught (especially if you don't give them permission to search your vehicle), but I've already gone down that road. If you go to a range and they say guns have to be unloaded when you bring them in (and must be loaded at the bench), you can either not go to that range, or you can abide by their rules. The government shouldn't have any say in the matter.

    Actually, it should. There shouldn't be any regulations on privately owned businesses or any private property, for that matter. If I want to sell hamburgers for 100 dollars, I should be able to. I'll probably go out of business if I do that, but that's my choice. If I don't want to hire you, I shouldn't be forced to. You don't have a right to my money and neither does the government. I shouldn't be forced to give you a job (a job that costs me money) and more than the government should be able to tell you what you spend your money on.

    If I want to eat pizza in my home every day, I should be able to. The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I do with my body on my private property. If I want to get drunk in my home, the government shouldn't be able to tell me that I have to keep it within a certain limit. If I don't want to sell my home, the government shouldn't be able to take it from me. It's my house, and it's my business, not yours, and not the governments. It's my private property, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it so long as I don't harm others and prevent them from doing the same.

    If I don't want you in my home, you shouldn't have the right to just step in and do whatever the hell you want. My house, my rules. If you don't like them, leave. The same principles apply to, well, private property. How that private property is being used should not be a criteria for whether it should be regulated or not. If my private property is being used to manufacture cartridges, the government shouldn't have any more regulatory authority over me than if I were using my private property as a living space. The concept of government control over private property, based on how it is used, is so dangerous it's not even funny.

    We complain about the slippery slope of gun control, and yet, when it comes to private property (and not just any private property mind you- private property being used in a manner you don't like), we are silent. It's just depressing.

    Why? It's still private property. If you'd like to argue that the government has a right to control private property if it's being used for certain purposes ("serving the public," ostensibly), we can go down that road.

    Suppose I have a few extra rooms in my home, and I want to rent them out to people (kind of like a business- a motel almost). I'll cook you food, I'll give you a place to stay, I'll let you use my internet, I'll let you watch TV, whenever you want. My conditions are that you pay me $500 a month, can't bring pets, don't make too much noise, and don't make the house too messy. If you break anything, you pay for it. Should the government be able to tell me what to do?

    Should they be able to force me to have to take a proportional number of people based on race or sex? Has to be 50:50 men/women or 25:25:25:25 black/white/Asian/Hispanic? Should they be able to tell me how much I can charge, or what rules I can and cannot apply on my private property?


    If your answer is yes, no doubt you support government control over your thermostat. Electricity is a public utility and all, and there is a public interest in making sure the power doesn't go out all over the state. Sounds like a good plan, eh? I mean hell, why not control private property as long as it's used "for the greater good," like eminent domain? If I choose to use my private property to sell things, or choose to use it to manufacture things, or choose to use it to live in (and maybe manufacture things while I'm living there, who knows), it makes no difference. It's still private property, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it and on it. Private property is private property. Whether you choose to sell things, make things, buy things, eat things, or watch things, should make no difference as to whether it is private property or not.

    If you don't have the right to go on/in my private property, be it my home, business, road, or car, how can you claim to have the right to do whatever you want on it?

    Park somewhere else.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page