You can't discriminate against religion and you cannot circumvent the right of a person to peacefully protest provided it does not interfere with their employment.
Under your lying logic, the NFL or an employer could require an employee to wear a flag pin.
Do they have that right?
Yes or no.
Yes an employer can require an employee to wear a flag pin. A Guinness distributor could require their employees to wear an Irish flag pin. An employer can have a dress code. It's only a problem if you're being discriminated against for an unlawful reason.
Their only hope would be to argue that it was in violation of their religion. I can't think of a good argument from that side at the moment... maybe there is one.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Self-proclaimed victories.
You can't discriminate against religion and you cannot circumvent the right of a person to peacefully protest provided it does not interfere with their employment.
Under your lying logic, the NFL or an employer could require an employee to wear a flag pin.
Do they have that right?
Yes or no.
Yes an employer can require an employee to wear a flag pin. A Guinness distributor could require their employees to wear an Irish flag pin. An employer can have a dress code. It's only a problem if you're being discriminated against for an unlawful reason.
Their only hope would be to argue that it was in violation of their religion. I can't think of a good argument from that side at the moment... maybe there is one.
Yes an employer can require an employee to wear a flag pin. A Guinness distributor could require their employees to wear an Irish flag pin. An employer can have a dress code. It's only a problem if you're being discriminated against for an unlawful reason.
Their only hope would be to argue that it was in violation of their religion. I can't think of a good argument from that side at the moment... maybe there is one.
Um, wrong.
Start with EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch and its progeny.
And stop lying.
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
Yes an employer can require an employee to wear a flag pin. A Guinness distributor could require their employees to wear an Irish flag pin. An employer can have a dress code. It's only a problem if you're being discriminated against for an unlawful reason.
Their only hope would be to argue that it was in violation of their religion. I can't think of a good argument from that side at the moment... maybe there is one.
Um, wrong.
Start with EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch and its progeny.
In MLB a player is fined an undisclosed amount for not dressing and wearing licensed clothing. No protest is peaceful. Where is Colon kaeperprick anyway? Micheal Bennet social injustices.... Does a lot of talking from his gated community.... He thinks throwing a few dollars is the cure. I have to leave for work now so some ungrateful mother of 7 kids with 5 different fathers can eat while their daddies , who are healthy sleep some more before they go out and do some stupid things and blame society for it all. All lives matter, enjoy your day
In MLB a player is fined an undisclosed amount for not dressing and wearing licensed clothing. No protest is peaceful. Where is Colon kaeperprick anyway? Micheal Bennet social injustices.... Does a lot of talking from his gated community.... He thinks throwing a few dollars is the cure. I have to leave for work now so some ungrateful mother of 7 kids with 5 different fathers can eat while their daddies , who are healthy sleep some more before they go out and do some stupid things and blame society for it all. All lives matter, enjoy your day
Anyone else see the hypocrisy of the NFL "supporting" the USAA, but then allowing these BULLS#!T kneeling "protests" during our National Anthem?
Hey, Roger Goodell - get off your A$$ and do your job and pick a FU##ING side. Either you're "pro" the kneeling protests from your "employees" that are against America (greatest country in the world BTW), or you're a "proud sponsor" of the military that keeps your STUPID A$$ from being beheaded.....
Anyone else see the hypocrisy of the NFL "supporting" the USAA, but then allowing these BULLS#!T kneeling "protests" during our National Anthem?
Hey, Roger Goodell - get off your A$$ and do your job and pick a FU##ING side. Either you're "pro" the kneeling protests from your "employees" that are against America (greatest country in the world BTW), or you're a "proud sponsor" of the military that keeps your STUPID A$$ from being beheaded.....
So they're not allowed to not hire her based on the fact that she needs to wear a headscarf for religious reasons.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
"Not allowed to not hire her??" Intellectuals would use better grammar than that.
Tea was free in China. The Supreme Court found protection in the autonomy of the individual from restrictions of a business. That is all you need to glean from the case.
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
"Start with EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch"
So they're not allowed to not hire her based on the fact that she needs to wear a headscarf for religious reasons.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
"Not allowed to not hire her??" Intellectuals would use better grammar than that.
Tea was free in China. The Supreme Court found protection in the autonomy of the individual from restrictions of a business. That is all you need to glean from the case.
Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom ofexpression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it's not absolute. ... So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.
Heather Bussing is an employment attorney and the Editorial Advisory Board editor at HR Examiner. Heather has practiced employment and business lawfor over 20 years. She has represented employers, unions and employees in every aspect of employment and labor law including contract negotiations, discrimination and wage hour issues. She regularly advises companies on personnel policies and how to navigate employment discipline and termination issues.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Semantics. You have that right because no one can deprive it from you. Its called negative liberties.
Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom ofexpression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it's not absolute. ... So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.
Heather Bussing is an employment attorney and the Editorial Advisory Board editor at HR Examiner. Heather has practiced employment and business lawfor over 20 years. She has represented employers, unions and employees in every aspect of employment and labor law including contract negotiations, discrimination and wage hour issues. She regularly advises companies on personnel policies and how to navigate employment discipline and termination issues.
"Not allowed to not hire her??" Intellectuals would use better grammar than that.
Tea was free in China. The Supreme Court found protection in the autonomy of the individual from restrictions of a business. That is all you need to glean from the case.
Any other irrelevant cases you'd like to talk about?
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
"Not allowed to not hire her??" Intellectuals would use better grammar than that.
Tea was free in China. The Supreme Court found protection in the autonomy of the individual from restrictions of a business. That is all you need to glean from the case.
Any other irrelevant cases you'd like to talk about?
Semantics. You have that right because no one can deprive it from you. Its called negative liberties.
You said:
Wrong.
Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom ofexpression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it.
OMG, you cannot make this up.
I said:
Semantics. You have that right because no one can deprive it from you. Its called negative liberties.
You said:
Wrong.
Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom ofexpression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it.
Who gives a cr@p whether they were in breach of (their) employment law
It certainly wasn't a crime
What is utterly clear to me is that this did not need to happen. Trump had made this a divisive front page issue at a time when he as PRESIDENT has so many more issues to deal with that he could impact in a positive way
I ask you Trump supporters:
Why is he not spending his time on other things where he CAN make a difference?
Why is he more interested in rows which cannot have a tangible benefit than helping his country?
And if the primary measure of a leader is the extent to which he unites and brings peace to his people, how is he faring so far?
Who gives a cr@p whether they were in breach of (their) employment law
It certainly wasn't a crime
What is utterly clear to me is that this did not need to happen. Trump had made this a divisive front page issue at a time when he as PRESIDENT has so many more issues to deal with that he could impact in a positive way
I ask you Trump supporters:
Why is he not spending his time on other things where he CAN make a difference?
Why is he more interested in rows which cannot have a tangible benefit than helping his country?
And if the primary measure of a leader is the extent to which he unites and brings peace to his people, how is he faring so far?
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is specifically designed to limit government officials and not private businesses,” Keith Whittington, a professor at Princeton University
Ultimately, “this is a contracts question, not a constitutional question,” says Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School. “The issue boils down to whether or not NFL owners have the contractual right to fire players for this type of behavior. The answer is ‘likely yes.’"
Peter Shane, law professor, Ohio State University "NFL teams, as private entities, are not covered by the First Amendment."
Susan Bloch, law professor, Georgetown University "The Constitution only limits what the government can do. The NFL is not the government, so the Constitution does not limit the NFL's actions. So no, the US Constitution would not prevent a player from being dismissed."
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is specifically designed to limit government officials and not private businesses,” Keith Whittington, a professor at Princeton University
Ultimately, “this is a contracts question, not a constitutional question,” says Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School. “The issue boils down to whether or not NFL owners have the contractual right to fire players for this type of behavior. The answer is ‘likely yes.’"
Peter Shane, law professor, Ohio State University "NFL teams, as private entities, are not covered by the First Amendment."
Susan Bloch, law professor, Georgetown University "The Constitution only limits what the government can do. The NFL is not the government, so the Constitution does not limit the NFL's actions. So no, the US Constitution would not prevent a player from being dismissed."
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) that laws against burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag were considered unconstitutional.
The Court held: “Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol.”
The only speech not protected in this manner is speech that breaches the peace, speech that incites “imminent lawless action,” according to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This was Charlottesville, for example.
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) that laws against burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag were considered unconstitutional.
The Court held: “Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol.”
The only speech not protected in this manner is speech that breaches the peace, speech that incites “imminent lawless action,” according to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This was Charlottesville, for example.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
