Tim Hardaway's Comments...

[cshs81]

Agreed..:thumb: If someone sticks a mike in my face and asks me how I feel about a subject, I'm going to tell them exactly how I feel...

 

 

Great. I admire you for your convictions. At the same time, if I'm your employer and you embarrass me or my company, your rear end is out the door. I'd respect your right to speech the entire time I was filling out the paperwork.

 

You guys are arguing two different items. Do not include the Constitution anywhere in your argument because it does not apply to this situation. If you think an employer should not fire/punish an employee for what the employee says, fine. That's a 100% different argument.

[HHSDad]

Great. I admire you for your convictions. At the same time, if I'm your employer and you embarrass me or my company, your rear end is out the door. I'd respect your right to speech the entire time I was filling out the paperwork.

 

You guys are arguing two different items. Do not include the Constitution anywhere in your argument because it does not apply to this situation. If you think an employer should not fire/punish an employee for what the employee says, fine. That's a 100% different argument.

I agree with you but for different reasons. I feel that anybody NOT receiving tax funding should be able to exercise their freedom of association. If my employer doesn't want to hire balding, overweight, heterosexual, white middle-age men, that should be his perogative. If I don't want to rent to (fill in the blank) then I shouldn't have to. And the public (not the government) has the right to admonish me and punish me in the market place. I guess that's what's happening to Tim Hardaway.

[True blue (and gold)]

I said it in the Dixie Chicks thread and I'll say it again here: The Constitution protects you from government restriction, not others opinions. He had a right to say what he said, but everyone who speaks out against him has that right too. Now, one could make the case that society makes too big of a deal out of these comments, but there is no law against it.

 

:thumb: Habib, your posts are quickly becoming amongst my favorite.

[Run To State]

I agree with you but for different reasons. I feel that anybody NOT receiving tax funding should be able to exercise their freedom of association. If my employer doesn't want to hire balding, overweight, heterosexual, white middle-age men, that should be his perogative. If I don't want to rent to (fill in the blank) then I shouldn't have to. And the public (not the government) has the right to admonish me and punish me in the market place. I guess that's what's happening to Tim Hardaway.

Yeah, but try it and watch the government and the lawyers be all over you like a duck on a June bug.

[Run To State]

Great. I admire you for your convictions. At the same time, if I'm your employer and you embarrass me or my company, your rear end is out the door. I'd respect your right to speech the entire time I was filling out the paperwork.

Maybe so and maybe someone would challenge you on that in a court of law with a lawsuit. Could win, could lose; challenges to laws happen every day.

 

You guys are arguing two different items. Do not include the Constitution anywhere in your argument because it does not apply to this situation. If you think an employer should not fire/punish an employee for what the employee says, fine. That's a 100% different argument.

I'd rather leave that decision to an expert. Nothing personal, but I'm not sure your cut from that cloth or not.

[cshs81]

Maybe so and maybe someone would challenge you on that in a court of law with a lawsuit. Could win, could lose; challenges to laws happen every day.

 

I'd rather leave that decision to an expert. Nothing personal, but I'm not sure your cut from that cloth or not.

 

RTS - On your first point, unless the worker is a contract employee, he is most likely an "at will" employee. Thus, he can fired "at will." There's not much to challenge in that case.

 

Secondly, while I'm not an "expert," I know that the Constitution does not offer free speech like some have pointed on here. The free speech clause is to protect us from our government penalizing us. It has NOTHING to do with employers/employees. You don't have to take my word for it. I'm sure there are attorneys in Ft Thomas and maybe some on here, right? Ask them.

[Run To State]

RTS - On your first point, unless the worker is a contract employee, he is most likely an "at will" employee. Thus, he can fired "at will." There's not much to challenge in that case.

 

Secondly, while I'm not an "expert," I know that the Constitution does not offer free speech like some have pointed on here. The free speech clause is to protect us from our government penalizing us. It has NOTHING to do with employers/employees. You don't have to take my word for it. I'm sure there are attorneys in Ft Thomas and maybe some on here, right? Ask them.

Like I said, it's nothing personal against you. I'm not saying you're wrong either, I really don't know to be honest with you. I guess I'm just more curious about it than anything else.

[scooterbob]

There are long recognized restrictions on freedom of speech as provided by the First Amendment. The oft used example is that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and expect to avoid consequences by hiding behind your First Amendment right. Also, there is the possibility that your speech is slanderous. You can. of course, be held liable for your slander.

 

Liberal interpretations of the First Amendment have extended the freedom of speech to include freedom of expression. Thus, it can be, and has been, argued that burning the flag is protected as freedom of expression.

 

However, we come to what I believe to be a dangerous outgrowth of political correctness. Certain groups (for example, among others, fundamental Christians) can be pretty much verbally abused without much negative reaction. Other groups (for example, among others, homosexuals) are treated as "sacred cows" who are vehemently protected. Speak against one of the former groups and protection is not forthcoming. Speak against one of the latter groups and the uproar is both deafening and violent.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Well, I think it goes both ways, and actually this is probably another topic.

 

I think our society today has become very polarized, even dangerously so at times. When there is a societal polarization, I believe that the factions each have difficulty separating the action and the individual.

 

LBBC, I'm disturbed by one thing. You seem to feel that Christians are somehow under attack these days. I wonder about that. I'm Catholic, and I'm (of course) Christian, but I don't feel that Christians are under attack when our beliefs are questioned.

 

Remember back in the day when there were lots of questions about the Catholic religion? For example, we discussed infant baptism. I didn't feel that was an attack, I felt it was an example of misunderstanding and an opportunity to open dialogue to create understanding.

My concerned with the attack is that any time that Christians take a position, IT SEEMS that we are told that is a position of hatred and Jesus wasn't about hate (which is correct) and we shouldn't hold that position. But yet, Jesus held position that sin was wrong, horrible thing that he suffered a horrible death for.

 

When we discussed those issues, I think you realized that I was coming from a position of ignorance because I knew extremely little about the subject and was asking questions to learn and grow.

 

The points made today are that simply we wrong. Not that the position of homosexuality is a sin is wrong. That we are wrong for taking that stance. It seems that we are not necessarily attacked for the position of the sin being wrong that how dare we call out as sin something two grown adults are doing. We are told that by us saying, "hey this is a sin" whether it is homosexuality, abortion or cheating on your spouse, etc, etc, we are being intolerant.

 

The attack does not seem to be on whether it is a sin or not, but the point of us being intolerant.

 

I also hold to the view that others share that someday Revelations WILL COME TRUE and we will NOT BE ABLE to openly practice Christianity in this country.