@Ace of Hearts I suggest you settle down some and that other people see this warning and take heed -- keep it civil in here or I will be forced to take action. I don't want to receive any further complaints about behavior in this thread or I will start handing out bans.

Continue, but reign it in or there will be consequences.

I can't believe MDK equates the protective rights of nazis (victimizers) with the protective rights of marginalized groups that would/historically have suffered under their regime (victims)

Well in the first place, I disagree entirely with your broad application of the word "Nazi." I think instead of branding people with a star of David, you're branding them with a swastika; I think the idea you're talking about is fascism under the guise of social justice (NOT saying you're a fascist, I just think you're missing the forest for the trees on this, which is understandable given the hate machines in the media). I think you're probably overstating things to get a rise out of people as a calculated move, and hey, if that's your game, knock yourself out, I'm just saying it's worked out great for the GOP so far. I think it's a misstep and I think you wouldn't like the way it makes you look, if you really stopped to think about it.

And finally, yes, rights apply to EVERYBODY. They're immutable. They're universal. The government's sole purpose is to safeguard them, period, everything else is derived from that. This notion of "equating" rights is alien to me -- rights are equal, by definition.

Some of these Nazi's are losing their jobs based on their attendance. I'm changing my relationship with capitalism too: It's complicated.

I did hear of a college professor being singled out because he was recognized at a rally, and a few thousand people are pressuring to have him lose his job. I always thought I held morality to a really high standard, but this man's ignorant beliefs doesn't necessarily mean he is bad at teaching chemistry. Kind of reminds me of Billy Bush getting fired for agreeing with Trump, when Trump is...well he's the president.

... but this man's ignorant beliefs doesn't necessarily mean he is bad at teaching chemistry.

This is true, but it does make him an individual with which an institute of higher learning might rightly question its ties too.

This is true, but it does make him an individual with which an institute of higher learning might rightly question its ties too.

I didn't think of it that way, you're right. I suppose I'm just a bit annoyed at mob mentalities recently.

Some of these Nazi's are losing their jobs based on their attendance. I'm changing my relationship with capitalism too: It's complicated.

Well, according to allegations of attendance. At least some of the people 'outed' weren't actually there.

Interestingly this fella is still gainfully employed. (edit: I think? actually not confident about that)

Perhaps a good chance to segue -- is it wrong to fire somebody for political views you don't agree with? Would that be different than -- for instance -- firing a teacher because they were Muslim? In my mind, if you're taking federal money, that's sort of a non-discrimination contract... you don't get to fire Drexel Bro, you don't get to fire the economics teacher who wears a Hijab, you don't get to fire the lesbian groundskeeper, etc., unless they're failing at their actual job. Where's everybody's line? Sort of a freedom-versus-freedom situation.

Perhaps a good chance to segue -- is it wrong to fire somebody for political views you don't agree with? Would that be different than -- for instance -- firing a teacher because they were Muslim? In my mind, if you're taking federal money, that's sort of a non-discrimination contract... you don't get to fire Drexel Bro, you don't get to fire the economics teacher who wears a Hijab, you don't get to fire the lesbian groundskeeper, etc., unless they're failing at their actual job. Where's everybody's line? Sort of a freedom-versus-freedom situation.

I think it's the same thing, discrimination against someone because of a belief, whether it be political or religious.

<Snipped quote by mdk>
I think it's the same thing, discrimination against someone because of a belief, whether it be political or religious.

I mean I agree wholeheartedly. But at the same time, if I'm forcing you to associate with people who don't represent your beliefs, is that not an infringement on your first amendment rights?

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I mean I agree wholeheartedly. But at the same time, if I'm forcing you to associate with people who don't represent your beliefs, is that not an infringement on your first amendment rights?

No, as far as I know. I'm a Christian, and honestly I'm of the contention that much of the bible is mistranslated and isn't necessarily as against homosexuality as most think. However, even if it was, just because my belief on homosexuality being a sin doesn't mean that it is a sin to associate with someone like that.
I'm drawing a blank on what idealogy or religion forbids people from associating with other people specifically. I do realize people believe things like "I don't want to be around sinners" or "I don't want to be around muslims" but show me the doctrine where it is a Christian law that prohibits such things.
Or any doctrine for any major faith/political belief.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

No, as far as I know. I'm a Christian, and honestly I'm of the contention that much of the bible is mistranslated and isn't necessarily as against homosexuality as most think. However, even if it was, just because my belief on homosexuality being a sin doesn't mean that it is a sin to associate with someone like that.
I'm drawing a blank on what idealogy or religion forbids people from associating with other people specifically. I do realize people believe things like "I don't want to be around sinners" or "I don't want to be around muslims" but show me the doctrine where it is a Christian law that prohibits such things.
Or any doctrine for any major faith/political belief.

Well the first amendment doesn't particularly care whether or not it's against Christian law. I mean it does, at the beginning I guess, technically, but... well mostly I was talking about this bolded part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

@mdkWell that part just entails that you have the right to protest and assemble together. It has nothing to do with associating or not associating with people you don't want to. Unless I'm confused on the question somehow...

@mdk

Firing a teacher because they are Muslim? No.

Firing a teacher because they were a member of ISIS? Yes.

Firing a professor because they a conservative? No.

Firing a professor because they are a Nazi? yes.

It really shouldn't be hard to make those distinctions in the majority of cases.

I have a clause in my contract which allows for my termination if I act in a way which is inconstant with my organisations values. It is a pretty broad sort of a thing. As a result I don't imagine they would have any problem firing me if I showed up covered in swastikas. I am even careful when it comes to things like the Women's march which I would very much like to have attended.

Im really not sure how this would play out with an actual federal employee. What would be the legal standing of a State Department employee if they showed up at a pro Nazi rally?

It really shouldn't be hard to make those distinctions in the majority of cases.

Well sure, but unless we have a guiding principle the distinctions are arbitrary. Simply agreeing that this group or that one is horrible, that's not really enough -- we need distinctions, lines in the sand you cannot cross; else, we're just playing bizzarro-favorites.

I have a clause in my contract which allows for my termination if I act in a way which is inconstant with my organisations values. It is a pretty broad sort of a thing. As a result I don't imagine they would have any problem firing me if I showed up covered in swastikas.

And I mean that's the real-life answer that works pretty well on the whole, which should just about short-circuit the conversation. But the balance of freedoms is a very interesting topic, says this guy -- if we pretended there was no code-of-conduct or contractual obligation on your part, where would you THEN draw the line?

I am even careful when it comes to things like the Women's march which I would very much like to have attended.

Ugh, I know I shouldn't say it, I really shouldn't... uh.... how much do you know about the speakers and organizers? They put a real actual murderer and rapist on stage, and Linda Sarsour is preeeeettty ISIS-y once you get to know her. I only bring it up because you mentioned ISIS in your fireable association list.

Im really not sure how this would play out with an actual federal employee. What would be the legal standing of a State Department employee if they showed up at a pro Nazi rally?

I'm not sure what the rules are for State Department, but I imagine they're similar to those of the DoD. Basically you can believe what you want, you can rally for what you want -- but if you in any way imply, even in a minor sense, that you're endorsing this thing "as a member of the DoD," for example by showing up in uniform -- that's a grievous offense. The principle being that the institution does not take a side. But again, that's DoD, which has all those military-coup-ish implications.

@mdk

Firing a teacher because they are Muslim? No.

Firing a teacher because they were a member of ISIS? Yes.

Firing a professor because they a conservative? No.

Firing a professor because they are a Nazi? yes.

It really shouldn't be hard to make those distinctions in the majority of cases.

I think it would be safe to say that being fired for what most consider 'radicals' is the line that's drawn. Muslim is fine, but
Al-Qaeda is not, etc.

Im really not sure how this would play out with an actual federal employee. What would be the legal standing of a State Department employee if they showed up at a pro Nazi rally?

I got curious and I asked my law-school friend who I game with on the weekends, and he said there is a very broad discretion with firing a State Department employee because they are technically not a protected class. But they'd still need to be provided with all of the severance benefits of a regular downsizing, and you'd need to be careful not to demean or slander them or they might have ground to sue the most benign thing you accuse them of. If you call them a Nazi slut, they can sue for the slut part if it was apart of the firing accusation, lol.

@mdkWell that part just entails that you have the right to protest and assemble together. It has nothing to do with associating or not associating with people you don't want to. Unless I'm confused on the question somehow...

I might be doing a poor job of presenting the question. It might also be a stupid question. In any case I take your meaning.

I might be doing a poor job of presenting the question. It might also be a stupid question. In any case I take your meaning.

Nah, it wasn't. No worries. It brought on a discussion^^

And I mean that's the real-life answer that works pretty well on the whole, which should just about short-circuit the conversation. But the balance of freedoms is a very interesting topic, says this guy -- if we pretended there was no code-of-conduct or contractual obligation on your part, where would you THEN draw the line?

If I personally got to draw the line? Anyone that expressed any sort of hatred aimed at another group would go. If your preaching hatred you have no place at Penny and Partners. I might be willing to give you one warning about representing the organization if you are spewing hatred against Nazis. Not tolerating Nazis IS a core value of P&P.

Ugh, I know I shouldn't say it, I really shouldn't... uh....

And so he didn't!

@mdk Do you watch Rebel Media?