All Forums | Politics

Why is Trump wrong?

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3736
Posts: 138
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 4577
Posted: #51
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:


Songbird 

Mr Khan 

Spoiled athletes that believe a false narrative 

Sad sad sad humans 



I didn't get your point

what's so entertaining ?

popcorn ?


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #52
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. 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #53
Certain freedoms or rights only exist in public and as related to the government. Some freedoms or rights do not exist in private-sector employment. 

This wasn't covered in law school? 

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #54
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. 

And stop lying. 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #55
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:

Certain freedoms or rights only exist in public and as related to the government. Some freedoms or rights do not exist in private-sector employment. 

This wasn't covered in law school? 


Wrong. All Bill of Rights protections extend to public or private. 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


Wrong. All Bill of Rights protections extend to public or private. 


Wrong. Workplace rights are very different from the Bill of Rights. 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #57
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Well..... 

Except in the WORKPLACE! 


 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2010
Posts: 3059
Posted: #58
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 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #59
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Well..... 

Except in the WORKPLACE! 



Because the Supreme Court has not interpreted the 2nd Amendment as meaning you can bring a gun anywhere, anytime. 

You are reaching and showing your lack of fundamental understanding. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html?mcubz=3

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-carry-a-gun/
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #60
NFL players do not have the right to protest by kneeling during the national anthem. They are ALLOWED to.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #61
"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? 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2015
Posts: 2874
Posted: #62
Ummmm.....

https://www.kens5.com/news/local/usaa-members-demand-company-cut-ties-with-nfl/478632719


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.....

Which is it?

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #63
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:

NFL players do not have the right to protest by kneeling during the national anthem. They are ALLOWED to.


Semantics. You have that right because no one can deprive it from you. Its called negative liberties. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #64
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. 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


Semantics. You have that right because no one can deprive it from you. Its called negative liberties. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Wrong. 

HR side of things covered here. 

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.


https://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

About the author of the article - 

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.




 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #66
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? 

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #67
I might put this thread on my parents refrigerator. 

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #68

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. 


OMG, you cannot make this up. 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:

I might put this thread on my parents refrigerator. 


It won't be a far walk from your bedroom in the basement. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #70
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


It won't be a far walk from your bedroom in the basement. 

That's a good one 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #71
I've made my argument and I've clearly won. 

I rest my case. 

Thank you to all of the participants. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2016
Posts: 3110
Posted: #72
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?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #73
He has the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. 




 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 27139
Posted: #74

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."

Etc etc etc 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/2017/9/25/16360580/nfl-donald-trump-national-anthem-protest



 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #75
Yawn.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-first-amendment-and-restricting-professional-athlete-protests

Also:

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.

All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.