You know what, if your going to dish it out, don't you think you should
learn how to take it? I bet it doesn't matter much when some good Mormon
fires an employee for being gay! Yes, that happened to me and I always had
respect for those around me! Do you know what it is like for someone to start
telling you that they have a problem with people like you? So, it is alright for
people to degrade me, judge me, and decide what I deserve in life based on their
beliefs that I am bad? When we stand up and defend ourselves, we are picking on
somebody? What I find so incredible are these wonderful Christian people who
have taken it upon themselves to do whatever they want to gay people, and then
they cry when someone fights back! Like I said, don't dish it out to
someone, unless you are willing to take it!
I you can't say something nice...
I took your advice, but read past the headlines, it wasn't local
liberals...The most prominent examples were those created by the
"United States Secret Service" for President George W. Bush and other
members of his administration. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms
prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency
that their scope was greatly expanded.Lots of things were
"greatly expanded" during that bush regime, guess lots of republicans
slept thru that though.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" I don't know what your complaint is
about. You realize that putting free speech zones far away from the event they
are protesting is also common among liberals. Just look at the news articles
from 2004 and the Republican National Convention in New York. The city of New
York separated them by 3 miles. That was not a conservative decision, but a
liberal one.We know you hate conservatives, but you could at least
find something that your ilk doesn't also do before you complain.
..and then you have Utah's "Free Speech Zones" placed so far from
an event as to literally quash any actual free speech.but that's OK,
it protected visiting Conservatives.
To "Candied Ginger" I don't think you realized what you did for
your boss that hated lots of people. You made that boss look good, and appear
to be good leader that inspires people to work hard and get things done. You
actually gave that person more power.Had you and the other people
that were hated quit and spoken with HR on the way out, you actually could have
done more against that person.
RedShirt"Why can't a person fire employees based on
whatever bias they may have? Would you want to work for a person who hates
you?"I actually have worked for people who hated me. The first
time was uncomfortable and stressful and I left after a few months. The second
time I needed the job and liked what I was doing so I changed my paradigm.
Instead of resisting I was like water - this was early in my Taoist studies. She
was intent on winning. My goal was to not lose. She came off like a raging
psycho, hated by her employees and disdained by her boss. I was producer of the
quarter twice, she was written up, demoted and then finally fired. It was fun. In retrospect I wish I had documented what she was
doing and gone to the EEOC. I wasn't the only employee she hated, and she
hurt a lot of people. An EEOC case would have shut her down and protected people
who weren't able to stand up to her.
To "airnaut" you sound like you now agree that Federal Law does in fact
implement a thought police that prevents you from exercising your freedom of
speech or association by firing employees that you do not for whatever biased
reason you may have.
RedShirtUofUAndoria, UTWhy can't a person fire employees
based on whatever bias they may have? Would you want to work for a person who
hates you?8:31 a.m. May 6, 2014======= This
is Utah.Utah is a "right to work" state.meaning: In
Utah, you can be fired for any rhymne and for any reason -- YOU the perosn have
Zero rights, and rights belong to the employer.The only way around
this is to use Federal Laws.
To "Open Minded Mormon" yes, I do realize that government has put limits
on the Constitutional rights that we have.Just like yelling fire in
a crowded theater is against the law.You are right, the US is not a
place where you can do what you want to do. It never has been. That is what
laws are for. The problem is that the government is becoming more and more of a
nanny and micromanaging our lives.Why can't a person fire
employees based on whatever bias they may have? Would you want to work for a
person who hates you?
Mr. Bender (like many Americans) is confused by the 1st amendment protections
offered in the Constitution. There is no guarantee that you can say or do what
you want without consequence, only that the government cannot legally stop you
from saying whatever you want (unless it puts others in danger). To paraphrase
the famous Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Mr. Eich may have a
constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be
a CEO."We are all subject to the consequences of our speech,
both societally and economically. Speak up if you must, but be prepared to pay
the price for it.
RedShirtUofUAndoria, UTTo "LDS Liberal" you realize that the
restrictions on being able to fire somebody because of race, gender, age,
religion, or orientation could be argued as going against the First Ammendment.
By making it illegal to fire people because of those reasons, you are
restricting me from being able to hire/fire people based on my thoughts. You are
in effect restricting my freedom of speech to declare those that are not like me
unworthy to work for/with me.2:53 p.m. May 5, 2014======== To "RedShirtUofU" you realize that the 2nd
amendment doesn't allow you to have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or
chemical weapons.You realize that the 1st Amendment doesn't
allow you wto worship using Human Sacrifices.You realize that free
press doesn't allow you to produce child pornography.No
RedShirtUofU, America is not the home of the Free to do whatever the you want
@2bits;Tolerance and "live and let live" would have been to
never have had a prop-8 or amendment-3 to begin with for these people to have
donated to/voted on.Instead, the intolerant 'religious'
put the rights of other Americans on the ballot. These intolerant
'religious' people attempted to strip marriage from their fellow
Americans, and in the case of Mozilla's CEO he felt a backlash for his
efforts. His "political contribution" wasn't actually a
"political contribution", it was a contribution to violate someone elses
rights.Tolerance works both ways and as your Jesus said: "You
reap what you sow".@Badgerbadger;Have you stood up
to defend those LGBT individuals who've been fired simply for being LGBT?
I didn't think so.@2bits;Until you have proof that
the "vandalism" of your churches was done by LGBT, then you should stop
saying we did it; as far as I'm concerned it was done by Mormons wanting to
get some sympathy after their prop-h8 fiasco.
Badgerbadger"1. When someone is harrased ... for something they
said -- call me.Mobbed out of a job doesn't count?"I have dealt with major fallout for stuff I said in a public forum.
Stuff I never attached my employers name to. The dogpile I dealt with was
really crappy. I'm still at my job site and I'm still employed. My point....I dealt with some massive crap after I said what I said.
Was I fired, no. Was I a pariah, oh yes.Words have consequences.
Don't ever doubt that.
"[Y]ou realize that the restrictions on being able to fire somebody because
of race, gender, age, religion, or orientation could be argued as going against
the First Ammendment. You are in effect restricting my freedom of speech to
declare those that are not like me unworthy to work for/with me."Absolutely wrong, and anyone with a high school understanding of civics should
see why. Your right to free speech ends when it causes harm to others. Firing
someone on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc., creates a presumption of
harm, and therefore does not have the right to be called free speech. You also
run into a 14th Amendment issue which also trumps claims to free speech. The Constitution confers the right to free speech. But inherent in that
right are parameters on its use which are necessary for the common good.
Why do people lie? The CEO was not forced to leave his office, he resigned.
Perhaps it was caused by the very same freedom of speech and religion that you
refer to! There are those that have the freedom to speak back! Freedom of speech
is two sided, you know! So, yes, you love that freedom of speech, when it works
for you! You love it when your freedom of religion allows you to dictate what
happens in the lives of others. So, why are you so upset? You are upset because
you do not want it to be two sided! You use your freedom of religion to believe
that same sex marriage is bad! Guess what, I use my freedom of religion to know
that God gives me the very same right to believe that being gay is not a sin!
You use your freedom of speech to deny gay people the right to marry. We use are
freedom of speech to fight back and to defend ourselves! Sure you love it when
it works for you! It is different when it works for us, isn't it! Is it
that hard to understand?
People's rights are always being trumped by other rights that are
perceived to contribute to the greater good of society. Remember the old
saying:"Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose
begins" Most people feel the right to live freely, without
discrimination, supersedes the "right" to discriminate based on race,
creed, or color. (and more arguably, sexual preference}
Sounds to me like some people can dish it out but can't take it. What happened when the overbearing conservative British wouldn't give us
our rights? We dropped tea into Boston Harbor. Real patriots, not the am radio
armchair ones. These folks protested what is known as the Boston Tea Party. We
still study it in history classes despite it happening over 200 years ago.What happened when women weren't given their rights? They
protested. Real patriots protested against the conservatives until the rest of
the nation woke up.What happened when blacks weren't given
their rights? They protested. Real patriots marched on Washington DC. A certain
Martin. Luther King Jr gave a speech called "I Have A Dream." Many
conservatives fought it. Many labeled King as a traitor! They asked to see his
birth certificate too! But the country continued to progress. Conservatives have
tried to stop progress for over 200 years. They have failed time after time.Protest is as American as apple pie. If you folks don't like gays
protesting for their rights then go to a country that doesn't protest. This
nation will continue to progress, with or without ya!
If you don't understand that the 1st Amendment applies only to government
proscription of speech and not to private sanctions, you've taken yourself
out of the argument from the get-go.
I want to clarify that I was offering a professional, not a personal, opinion
when I said First Amendment protections of expression only apply to governments.
That has been the legal understanding of the First Amendment since its
inception. The line of cases that make it clear that actions by
non-governmental parties don't violate the U.S. Constitution is New York
Times v. Sullivan (1964). In that case, white businessmen and public officials
in the South tried to muzzle civil rights organizations such as NAACP, claiming
the groups' protests of segregation defamed them. They also sued news
organizations to prevent them from reporting news about civil rights. The New
York Times won the case, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling newspapers could
report any news, including involving public officials or public figures, as long
as there was no evidence of actual malice, i.e., recklessness or knowing the
report to be false.It is telling people are offering the same
defense of bigots like Sterling and Bundy - neither the public nor the press
should be allowed to criticize them. That wasn't true in 1964. It
isn't true now.
To "LDS Liberal" you realize that the restrictions on being able to fire
somebody because of race, gender, age, religion, or orientation could be argued
as going against the First Ammendment. By making it illegal to fire people
because of those reasons, you are restricting me from being able to hire/fire
people based on my thoughts. You are in effect restricting my freedom of speech
to declare those that are not like me unworthy to work for/with me.
@LDS Liberal1. "When someone is harrased ... for something they
said -- call me".OK... I'm calling you. The guy from
mozzila was harassed, and not even for something he SAID... just for making a
small POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION!!!He's not the first to be
harassed by the Gay Maffia....Google "Protests against
Proposition 8 supporters" (wikipedia)... go to the "Boycots" and
"Death threats and vandalism" sections...Examples:Scott Eckern, Artistic Director, California Musical Theatre. Resigned November
15, 2008.Richard Raddon, Director, Los Angeles Film Festival. Resigned
November 25, 2008 Marjorie Christoffersen, Manager, El Coyote Restaurant,
Los Angeles, a lifelong Mormon. The restaurant was picketed after it was learned
that Christofferson donated $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign...Google
"Bill Maher: ‘Gay mafia’ will take your career down ‘if
you cross them’" Washington Times...Google "Gay rights
Protests Utah".... we had harassment right here in Utah! Churches were
vandalized (in Utah and California) even Arson. Innocent people were harassed
(on temple square, Main Street, Utah State Capitol, etc).Google
"Churches Vandalized Over Prop 8"...Google "Prop. 8
passage spawns protests, violence and vandalism"...Vandalism,
arson, intimidation... That is harassment...
BadgerbadgerMurray, UT1. When someone is harrased ... for something
they said -- call me.Mobbed out of a job doesn't count? I am calling you out now. Being mobbed out of a job is indeed
harassment. You are pure partisan.2:02 p.m. May 5,
2014======== If the CEO of a Corporation causes trouble
to that Corporation, and the Share-Holders and Boards of Directors have
every right to "fire" him.Their loyalty is with the Stock
and Shares, NOT some guy and his rights.Like I said -- no one was
sent to jail for speaking.Why don't you trying telling Racial
or Chauvanistic slurs or jokes at work, and let me know how long it took
for YOU to get set to Human Resporces and get fired.BTW -- You
should be "Thanking" the us Liberals for passing laws that make it
illegal to fire someone due to Race, Gender, Age, Religion, or Sexual
Orientation.Conservatives have been fighting against that since day
You mention "liberal" boycotts of Chic-Filla but not the
"conservative" boycotts of Disney and a myriad other corporations. Why
1. When someone is harrased ... for something they said -- call me.Mobbed out of a job doesn't count? I am calling you out now.
Being mobbed out of a job is indeed harassment. You are pure
Maverick, larry, etc,Sounds like you're perfectly fine with a
boycott on a company because they're not Mormon, not white, etc, too. I
mean it's our right... and whatever we have the right to do... we SHOULD
do... right?That's what I'm saying... just because we have
the RIGHT to do it... doesn't make it the right thing to do. Tolerance of
others who aren't like us or we don't agree with... has to come in
there somewhere.====I'm not saying it's
against the law to retaliate (because somebody donated to the wrong campaign, or
because they said something you don't like).... I'm just saying
it's not the right thing to do (even if we have the right to do it).
It's not the "TOLERANT" thing to do. It's not the "Live
and let live"... thing to do.Does that make sense?====
To "Russell Bender" and most of the others posting on this article. I
hate to tell you this, but the examples given here are not examples of First
Ammendment issues.The First Ammendment applies to Government
regulations, not businesses hiring or firing people, and businesses supporing
movements. The Citizens United case is an example of the First Ammendment being
Try saying something liberal in a conservative newspaper, then get back to
me about being Ostracized.
About 5,000 years ago The Lord gave Adam and Eve a lil thing called Free Agency.
Free agency gave man the choice to choose what he could say, do, think, etc. it
did not, however, make man immune to consequences. So although we are free to
make our own choices we are not free to choose our own consequences.The godless right seems to want to have their instant gratification while
avoiding any negative consequences. They are acting as children, thinking that
they can do and say whatever they want but never face any consequences. Just
like a 3 year old does.Unfortunately, life isn't that way. The
mozilla guy and sterling, all had freedom to choose. They could have acted to
spread love and peace. Instead, they acted to spread hate and conflict. Hate and
conflict does not come from The Lord. Bad choices bring negative
consequences. It's that simple.
You can't have it both ways. Private corporations mute their
employees all the time. Some companies even enact anti gossip rules, or rules
punishing you if you discuss your wage with fellow employes.When
company owners or executives spout off about race, gender issues, gay rights, or
what ever, they are opening them selves up criticism or economic retaliation.
It is only fair that we we have the right to vote with our free speech and our
pocketbooks.Its just the flip side of good old American FREE
1. When someone is harrased or thrown in jail for something they said -- call
me.No government agency is taking away anyone's free speech -- [well,
excluding Bush Co. and their Patriot Act]2. Free Speech does not
protect one from STUPID Speech, or immune from the consequences of blabbing your
mouth off -- and that's the issue.3. If Free Speech or Free
Press was really in trouble -- Limbaugh would have been locked up 20 years ago,
and FoxNews would still be 4th ranked cable network were they belong.BTW -- Mr. Bender never fails to entertain me.
@Interloper,So... it sounds like you would be perfectly OK with
getting fired because you wanted contraceptives, or you got an abortion, or you
said something I don't agree with (even in private), or you made a private
donation to the wrong political campaign...?I mean a company is a
private organization (just like the NBA, or Mozzila). Right?===You over-reach when you pretend one side thinks the Constitution means
there is no consequence for what we say.I haven't seen anybody
say that the NBA has a constitutional requirement to let him say whatever he
wants. Like I said earlier... it's a matter of "Tolerance" not
the Constitution.It's "live and let live"... even if my
views are not the same as the other individual.===But
bottom line... this is an issue of tolerance, not the law.IF the
things Sterling and the Mozzila executive did (in private)... are intolerable
and they must be banished from our companies and our society... what is to
become of them? Can Sterling not work ANYWHERE in America now? Should it go both ways? Blacks comments about whites... receive same
punishment? Liberal campaign contributions same punishment???
If you live your life as you profess you should, soon you'll find you
won't need to worry about what or how you say it. Your attitude toward
those you hate will soon turn and you can finally treat others by the Golden
Amen Russell, Amen!I dare not say more. My free speech will be
screen out. In fact I don't know you got this letter accepted, but great
job. You are absolutely right.
What about all the boycotts by conservatives against Disney and other companies
that support gay rights?Where is your outrage about those
boycotts?Sorry, I smell a rat.
The letter writer does not understand the concept of freedom of speech. The
First Amendment's protections apply to government action. Any government
in the United States is limited in how much control it has over people
expressing their opinions. However, private parties are not subject to such
constitutionally protected limitations.Donald Sterling has been
disciplined by a private organization, the NBA. He agreed to its bylaws when he
became a member of the team owner's association. He broke some of those
bylaws. The commissioner of basketball responded by expelling Sterling from the
NBA. None of this has anything to do with government action. So, the First
Amendment does not apply to it. There is a trend on the Right to
try to use 'freedom of speech' as a pretext to defend racism and other
disgusting behavior. Most recently, we saw this defense used to protect Cliven
Bundy and Donald Sterling. Both of these men were punished by public opinion
after engaging in shameful behavior. There is nothing unfair about that. Nor
is either of them being deprived of his freedom of speech.
"First Amendment rights have been destroyed by "political
correctness."American Capitalism is predicated on the principle
that consumers will vote with their wallets and business will cater to those
dollars.In all cases that you cite, free speech is alive and well.
Business (NBA perhaps?) is making decisions based on not alienating those
dollars and in the case of Chic fil a, it gained some business and lost some
business.But in neither case is free speech being
"destroyed". People are still free to state their opinions
and consumers can act on them.Just like it was designed to work.
It's interesting to see the posts that attack the person instead of the
message. When the "message" contains hate speech, the person who
originated that message should feel the consequences of what he said. Congress
does not legislate what MIGHT be said, just like the police do not confiscate
our keys because we MIGHT drive carelessly. Punishment comes AFTER the act, not
before.We may be ostracized if we are careless with our speech, but
is not an excuse for others to use hate speech. There are many forms of hate
speech. The most common form is found right here on this thread when people
attack one person and then smear whatever "group" that person is thought
to associate with. That is hate speech. That is something that polite people
in a polite society would never do.
Russel,The incessant whining and convoluted thinking of
“Conservatives” is just mind boggling.Let’s look at what
you are doing.You are condemning people for expressing their
distaste for “Conservative” views.In other words, you
are condemning people for exercising their first amendment rights, and at the
same time, you are pretending to be protecting the first amendment.Sorry man, but you are living a lie.People have a RIGHT to dislike
the Mozilla CEO and his actions, and they have the right to express their
dissatisfaction.So take your own advice and “choose not to be
This is an issue of "Tolerance"... not the law.There is no
law that people be ostracized if they violate this taboo... but there is also
no law against it.It's up to us (not the law) to decide if we
can be tolerant of others who may not share our views. I
don't think destroying someone's life because they don't share my
views... is appropriate. So I won't do it. But that's my personal
philosophy... not a law.===The Left USED TO claim to
observe the "live and let live" philosophy... but absolutely not any
more. Those times are gone. And they resemble the "religious right"
of the 1980s to me... not the "Liberal" live and let live people of the
60's and 70s.The Left seems to practice even more intolerance
of others than the Right today.Neither being intolerant is OK IMO
BTW... I'm just amazed at how they have switched places today... The
Right is almost more "live and let live" than the LEFT today!
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the
freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."The government took no action against Mr Eich. He made a contribution he
had a right to make. People had a right to stop buying the product his company
sells when they found out about his donation. The board, fearing loss of sales,
had a right to ask him to resign.The CEO of Chik-Fil-A publicly
donated to certain organizations. Some people elected to stop buying their
product. Others stood in line for hours to buy the product. The government took
no action. People buying chicken and people holding signs and not buying chicken
were assembling peaceably, the government did not interfere with either side.
While I am concerned about the privacy issues in the Sterling case,
the government took no action. His employees protested, the customers - those
who watch the games - protested, and his fellow owners made a marketing decision
to fine him and exclude him from games. Sheer capitalism, no First Amendment
Ralph,Everyone has free speech, everyone also has the freedom to the
reprocussions of what they said. Without holding people responsible for their
language, society would do harm to those to whom bad or inaccurate things were
said. You are responsible for what comes out of your mouth. You
must pay the price if it is something that is abhorred by society. If you
believe in what you say, stand up for yourself. If it is something that
proclaims your ignorance, learn what you need to. If it is something that shows
your comtempt for a segment of society, that is no longer acceptable - as it
should be unacceptable, and you will pay the price for saying it.
Mr. Bender's closing statement:“To try to put into our
society any kind of law against anything that may prove to be offensive or
hurtful to someone is patently ridiculous and wrong.”Child
molestation and anti-slavery laws address activity that “may prove to be
offensive or hurtful to someone...”.The closing statement in
Mr. Bender's letter is nonsense.He does address some genuine
problems in 21st century America.