Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 25313233343536 LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 535

Thread: Rosanne gets the ax!

  1. #511 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    7,950
    Thanks
    5,865
    Thanked 4,108 Times in 3,183 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 137 Times in 133 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackascoal View Post
    :0) So says the white guy supposed Stein supporter. If you were truly a Stein supporter .. which I doubt .. we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Calling a woman in my family a 'buffalo' doesn't make it racist. What Barr said was decidedly racist .. and you claiming not to know that is all the tell I need know about where your sentiments lie.
    Two white women worth tens of millions of dollars each called compared black women to an ape and a buffalo, and that's okay with you. Okay, Mrs. Coal is a buffalo.

  2. #512 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    You are ridiculous.. The government does NOT protect Roseanne's freedom of speech from her employer.. Call your nearest law school and ask.

    Further, Valarie Jarret was NOT responsible for ME policy and there is NO SUCH THING as Islamic Brotherhood in Iran or anywhere else.
    Most absolutely the federal, state, and local government DOES protect all employees from employer discrimination, and political expression in particular is explicitly listed in CA and NY law, plus the SCOTUS interpretations of the 14th and 1st amendments.
    So you are completely wrong.
    It is summarized by the NLRB, which I have already quoted.

    And as one of Obama's top advisers, it would be impossible for Valerie Jarrett to not have been partially responsible for Obama's Mideast policies.
    That is exactly what political advisors do, and Jarrett has always been outspoken about the Mideast.

    And we have already been corrected that it is the Muslim Brotherhood, not Islamic Brotherhood.

  3. #513 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Which Ikwan are you talking about? One has been defunct since the late 1930s.

    You really don't know anything about the ME or Iran in particular... and neither does Roseanne Barr.
    Quote from wiki.
    I don't have to know much about the ME or Iran in particular, because this discussion is only about US law and guaranteed rights.
    I don't particularly agree with Roseanne either, but that is not relevant.

  4. #514 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    the Michigan constitution and the federal constitution do not provide the coverage you insist is there......time to just admit you fucked up and drop it, you are starting to look like an idiot......
    Wrong.
    First of all, it is CA or NY law that applied to ABC firing Roseanne, and I also quoted NY, CA, MI, and federal law, as well as NLRB regulations, all clearly stating that employer suppression of freedom of political expression outside of work is strictly illegal!

    {...
    The National Labor Relations Act, which does cover private employers, may not apply directly to political speech per se in the private workplace. However, it does give non-supervisory employees a limited right to engage in free speech and other protected concerted activities for their “mutual aid and protection.”

    For example, under this federal labor law, employees may wear union buttons or insignia in the workplace, absent special circumstances. They may engage in solicitations for political causes on their employer’s property so long as neither the employee doing the solicitation and the employee being solicited are not engaging in such activities during working time.

    Similarly, employees may engage in distribution of political materials on the employer’s property so long as the distribution does not occur in working areas. Moreover, employers who allow candidates to come on to their property and campaign, may undermine their rights to maintain and enforce otherwise lawful limits on employee solicitation or distribution.

    Court rulings and opinions of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also make it clear that employees can engage in political campaign activities that may be contrary to the interests or positions of their employer. For example, discharging employees for campaigning against immigration reform or for repeal of a state’s right to work law would be unlawful.

    The NLRB has also recently been very active in applying the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection to social media such as Facebook and Twitter — even when the employees are not working. The NLRB has published three extensive reports in the past year expounding on these rights. Thus, employers should be careful to appreciate and not violate rights of employees who exercise their emerging rights to use such forms of social media.
    ...}

    https://www.tlnt.com/political-speec...loyers-beware/

    For those who incorrectly believe ABC has some sort of rights from a supposed morals clause, such clauses are barred from infringing on political expression, by law.

    {...
    But two sections of the California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) specify that private employers may not do any of the following:

    Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or running for public office;
    Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy that tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees;5 or
    Use the threat of job loss to coerce, influence or attempt to coerce or influence employees to take or refrain from taking any particular course of political activity.6
    It follows from these laws against employer political suppression or coercion that employers may not fire or retaliate against employees for their political activity or beliefs.
    ...}

    https://www.shouselaw.com/employment...taliation.html

    Face it, even during the darkest hours of McCarthyism in the 1950s, no network was stupid enough to admit they were illegally backballing people over their political beliefs.
    That is because it not only has ALWAYS been completely illegal, but is the single most protected right of all in this country.
    Everyone should be willing to die and kill over such an important right.
    It is amazing anyone would be so racist as to not want to defend Roseanne from this abuse.

  5. #515 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigby5 View Post
    Wrong.
    First of all, it is CA or NY law that applied to ABC firing Roseanne, and I also quoted NY, CA, MI, and federal law, as well as NLRB regulations, all clearly stating that employer suppression of freedom of political expression outside of work is strictly illegal!

    {...
    The National Labor Relations Act, which does cover private employers, may not apply directly to political speech per se in the private workplace. However, it does give non-supervisory employees a limited right to engage in free speech and other protected concerted activities for their “mutual aid and protection.”

    For example, under this federal labor law, employees may wear union buttons or insignia in the workplace, absent special circumstances. They may engage in solicitations for political causes on their employer’s property so long as neither the employee doing the solicitation and the employee being solicited are not engaging in such activities during working time.

    Similarly, employees may engage in distribution of political materials on the employer’s property so long as the distribution does not occur in working areas. Moreover, employers who allow candidates to come on to their property and campaign, may undermine their rights to maintain and enforce otherwise lawful limits on employee solicitation or distribution.

    Court rulings and opinions of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also make it clear that employees can engage in political campaign activities that may be contrary to the interests or positions of their employer. For example, discharging employees for campaigning against immigration reform or for repeal of a state’s right to work law would be unlawful.

    The NLRB has also recently been very active in applying the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection to social media such as Facebook and Twitter — even when the employees are not working. The NLRB has published three extensive reports in the past year expounding on these rights. Thus, employers should be careful to appreciate and not violate rights of employees who exercise their emerging rights to use such forms of social media.
    ...}

    https://www.tlnt.com/political-speec...loyers-beware/

    For those who incorrectly believe ABC has some sort of rights from a supposed morals clause, such clauses are barred from infringing on political expression, by law.

    {...
    But two sections of the California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) specify that private employers may not do any of the following:

    Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or running for public office;
    Make, adopt or enforce any rule or policy that tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees;5 or
    Use the threat of job loss to coerce, influence or attempt to coerce or influence employees to take or refrain from taking any particular course of political activity.6
    It follows from these laws against employer political suppression or coercion that employers may not fire or retaliate against employees for their political activity or beliefs.
    ...}

    https://www.shouselaw.com/employment...taliation.html

    Face it, even during the darkest hours of McCarthyism in the 1950s, no network was stupid enough to admit they were illegally backballing people over their political beliefs.
    That is because it not only has ALWAYS been completely illegal, but is the single most protected right of all in this country.
    Everyone should be willing to die and kill over such an important right.
    It is amazing anyone would be so racist as to not want to defend Roseanne from this abuse.
    please.....stop pretending you have a fucking clue what you are talking about......

  6. #516 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigby5 View Post
    political expression in particular is explicitly listed in CA and NY law.
    not surprising that the two most lib'rul states would provide so........beyond that you are whistling in the wind.....

  7. #517 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Controlled Opposition View Post
    Two white women worth tens of millions of dollars each called compared black women to an ape and a buffalo, and that's okay with you. Okay, Mrs. Coal is a buffalo.
    Calling one person anything is not racist.
    But Roseanne did not call anyone anything.
    She referenced the move, "Planet of the Apes" in regard to the Mideast policies of Jarrett.
    When you have the ideas of one person being compared to a synthesis of 2 different political references, that is not at all racial.

    Nor would it matter if it were racial.
    Racial slurs and even overt racism are both protected political expression.
    It is illegal for ABC to fire her.

    Political expression has always been specifically protected by law in the US.
    And the SCOTUS has long ago established that under the principle of selective incorporation.

    {...
    First Amendment

    (incorporated)

    Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947) clarified the Establishment Clause.
    Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940) held that the state couldn't impose restrictions on religious grounds.
    Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925) held that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to adhere to the First Amendment.
    Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931) held that the Minnesota "gag law" violated freedom of the press.
    De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 US 353 (1937) held that Oregon's criminal syndicalism law was unconstitutional.
    NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) Used Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to establish the right to expressive association, which is not specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.
    ...}

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_US_Su...irst_Amendment

  8. #518 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    not surprising that the two most lib'rul states would provide so........beyond that you are whistling in the wind.....
    Ever consider reading SCOTUS rulings?
    You might find them interesting and educational.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

    {...
    Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.
    ...
    Gitlow was the first major First Amendment case that the American Civil Liberties Union argued before the Supreme Court.[3]

    The Court had to consider whether it could review a challenge to a state law on the basis that it violated the federal constitution. If it determined that such a challenge lay within the scope of its authority, then it had to review the application of the law to the case at hand, the specific violation of the statute.

    It upheld Gitlow's conviction 7–2, with Brandeis and Holmes dissenting.[4]

    Incorporation
    The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, that states were free to enforce statutes that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and that the federal courts could not interfere with the enforcement of such statutes. Gitlow v. New York partly reversed that precedent and began a trend toward its nearly complete reversal. The Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states.

    The Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states".

    The Court used the doctrine first enunciated in Gitlow in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court has identified rights specified in the Bill of Rights and incorporated them into the liberties covered by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Recently, the Supreme Court, see, McDonald v. Chicago, found the 2nd Amendment Right to "...keep and bear arms," for lawful purposes such as self-defense both a fundamental and individual right of all law-abiding Citizens over 21 years of age and of sound mind as self-defense is the "central component" of the 2nd Amendment, and these Rights are "fully applicable" in all of the 50 States.

    Free speech
    The Court upheld Gitlow's conviction on the basis that the government may suppress or punish speech that directly advocates the unlawful overthrow of the government and it upheld the constitutionality of the state statute at issue, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence.

    Justice Edward Terry Sanford's majority opinion attempted to define more clearly the "clear and present danger" test developed a few years earlier in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). He embraced "the bad tendency test" found in Shaffer v. United States, 255 F. 886 (1919), which held that a "State may punish utterances endangering the foundations of government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means" because such speech clearly "present[s] a sufficient danger to the public peace and to the security of the State." According to Sanford, a "single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration." He said the Manifesto contained "the language of direct incitement" and was not "the expression of philosophical abstraction."[4]

    In his dissent, Holmes, the author of Schenck's clear and present danger test, wrote that he believed it was still the appropriate test to employ in judging the limits of freedom of expression. Joined by Brandeis, he argued that Gitlow presented no present danger because only a small minority of people shared the views presented in the manifesto and because it directed an uprising at some "indefinite time in the future." He responded to Sanford's kindling metaphor that "eloquence may set fire to reason, but, whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration."[4]
    ...}

    Once incorporated by the SCOTUS, then any of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights then are considered individual rights that no one can legally infringe upon, not state, municipalities, nor individuals, like employers.

  9. #519 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    not surprising that the two most lib'rul states would provide so........beyond that you are whistling in the wind.....
    No, states do not have to enumerate which particular forms of discrimination are illegal.
    Most rights remain unenumerated because they are essentially infinite.
    The only reason age, sex, race, and religion are expressly enumerated is because they have petitioned for redress of grievence as a group, and won.
    That does NOT at all imply that any other rights are not protected.

    And it does not really matter, first of all because either NY or CA would have to be the relevant state, but federal law also covers protection of individual political expression.

  10. #520 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigby5 View Post
    Calling one person anything is not racist.
    But Roseanne did not call anyone anything.
    She referenced the move, "Planet of the Apes" in regard to the Mideast policies of Jarrett.
    When you have the ideas of one person being compared to a synthesis of 2 different political references, that is not at all racial.

    Nor would it matter if it were racial.
    Racial slurs and even overt racism are both protected political expression.
    It is illegal for ABC to fire her.

    Political expression has always been specifically protected by law in the US.
    And the SCOTUS has long ago established that under the principle of selective incorporation.

    {...
    First Amendment

    (incorporated)

    Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947) clarified the Establishment Clause.
    Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940) held that the state couldn't impose restrictions on religious grounds.
    Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925) held that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to adhere to the First Amendment.
    Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931) held that the Minnesota "gag law" violated freedom of the press.
    De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 US 353 (1937) held that Oregon's criminal syndicalism law was unconstitutional.
    NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) Used Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to establish the right to expressive association, which is not specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.
    ...}

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_US_Su...irst_Amendment
    No, it's not illegal to fire her. Workers in america are the property of their employers. That pig can be just like the rest of us since she wants to "represent" real folks.

  11. #521 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigby5 View Post
    No, states do not have to enumerate which particular forms of discrimination are illegal.
    ???....dude, unless the law creates a protected class they have no rights.......The reason age, sex, race, and religion are expressly enumerated is because they are the ones given protection by the act......Texans are not enumerated.....you cannot sue someone for "discriminating" against Texans........hamburger flippers are not enumerated........you cannot sue someone for "discriminating" against hamburger flippers........and except for states where they HAVE been enumerated, demmycrats are not protected from discrimination.......

  12. #522 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigby5 View Post
    but federal law also covers protection of individual political expression.
    are you referring to freedom of speech?......true......but if your employer doesn't like you because he knows you're a lib'rul he can fire you any time he wants........even in California.......

  13. #523 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigby5 View Post
    Most absolutely the federal, state, and local government DOES protect all employees from employer discrimination, and political expression in particular is explicitly listed in CA and NY law, plus the SCOTUS interpretations of the 14th and 1st amendments.
    So you are completely wrong.
    It is summarized by the NLRB, which I have already quoted.

    And as one of Obama's top advisers, it would be impossible for Valerie Jarrett to not have been partially responsible for Obama's Mideast policies.
    That is exactly what political advisors do, and Jarrett has always been outspoken about the Mideast.

    And we have already been corrected that it is the Muslim Brotherhood, not Islamic Brotherhood.

    You are still dead wrong. LOL Were you also a birther?

    Valarie Jarrett LEFT Iran when she was five years old.. and in those days Iran had a huge ex-pat community.

    You are pathetically ignorant.


    Who is the "we" that have been corrected?

    You think you are a king or something?

  14. #524 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
    No, it's not illegal to fire her. Workers in america are the property of their employers. That pig can be just like the rest of us since she wants to "represent" real folks.
    What country are you talking about?
    In the US, it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on sex, age, religion, political affiliation, and many other categories.
    About the only reasons they could break her contract is if she did something illegal, failed to perform up to the contract, or something like that.
    An off hours tweet is totally illegal to fire over.

  15. #525 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    ???....dude, unless the law creates a protected class they have no rights.......The reason age, sex, race, and religion are expressly enumerated is because they are the ones given protection by the act......Texans are not enumerated.....you cannot sue someone for "discriminating" against Texans........hamburger flippers are not enumerated........you cannot sue someone for "discriminating" against hamburger flippers........and except for states where they HAVE been enumerated, demmycrats are not protected from discrimination.......
    That is totally and completely uninformed.
    Specific protected classes are just groups who have successfully petitioned for additional protection because they were being discriminated against.
    But not only specific protected classes have their rights defended by law.
    Essentially all discrimination is illegal.
    You could never name all the specific groups.
    They are infinite.
    And YES, you can sue someone for discriminating against Texans, and win if the case is true and you get a knowledgeable judge.

    All I have to do is show you federal law, since there are too many states to bother with.

    The NLRB is federal law:

    {... The National Labor Relations Act, which does cover private employers, may not apply directly to political speech per se in the private workplace. However, it does give non-supervisory employees a limited right to engage in free speech and other protected concerted activities for their “mutual aid and protection.”

    For example, under this federal labor law, employees may wear union buttons or insignia in the workplace, absent special circumstances. They may engage in solicitations for political causes on their employer’s property so long as neither the employee doing the solicitation and the employee being solicited are not engaging in such activities during working time.

    Similarly, employees may engage in distribution of political materials on the employer’s property so long as the distribution does not occur in working areas. Moreover, employers who allow candidates to come on to their property and campaign, may undermine their rights to maintain and enforce otherwise lawful limits on employee solicitation or distribution.

    Court rulings and opinions of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also make it clear that employees can engage in political campaign activities that may be contrary to the interests or positions of their employer. For example, discharging employees for campaigning against immigration reform or for repeal of a state’s right to work law would be unlawful.

    The NLRB has also recently been very active in applying the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection to social media such as Facebook and Twitter — even when the employees are not working. The NLRB has published three extensive reports in the past year expounding on these rights. Thus, employers should be careful to appreciate and not violate rights of employees who exercise their emerging rights to use such forms of social media. ...}

Similar Threads

  1. Rosanne Barr - Idiot At Large
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-06-2011, 11:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •