How’s that working out for ya?
1 Like
Probably the worst imaginable punishment for them.
2 Likes
7 Likes
Punching a nazi can get you arrested. Accidently hitting them with your cart, however, well, such things happen.
1 Like
It depends on what you mean by applies. It applies inasmuch as the Government cannot make it illegal to wear a swastika face-mask inside a Walmart. It doesn’t apply inasmuch as Walmart is perfectly within its rights to ban them inside its stores if it chooses.
(At least, that’s my understanding, as a non-American non-lawyer.)
6 Likes
I think that after 200 years, any law is outdated and needs to be updated, if only for clear modern language. The US constitution is pretty much useless these days.
Don’t exist in the US and are almost definitely unconstitutional.
That’s the point you are wrong on. Politics are not a protected class. I could fire my employees for voting for Trump. I could fire my employees if didn’t vote for Trump. I could make my employees wear a Make America Great Again hat.
At will employment only protects protected classes. Otherwise you are employed at will and can be fired for any reason OTHER than race, gender, religion, or handicap. Politics is not in that list.
I think you may be a bit off here. A vote is considered free speech. They could NOT fire you for refusing to vote for Trump (by stating “we’re firing you for not voting Trump.”) They would, of course, drum up some other stupid reason to fire you, and force you to prove they were firing you for not voting for Trump. But political views expressed on your personal time are absolutely protected under the 1st amendment.
My feeling is what you’re thinking of is: Political PARTIES are not a protected group under the 14th amendment, and thus do not get consideration in things like gerrymandering cases. At least according to current court rulings.
What’s the reason we have secret voting, then?
1 Like
Read up on at-will employment. It is the basic law of the land. Things like the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws carve out very well defined exceptions to that. The employer, by default, can fire anyone for any reason.
Fine, you’re right, I have to concede the point after digging a little deeper. But I don’t gotta like it, damn you, and I’m going to go petulantly sulk in the corner.
3 Likes
Yeah I was referring to the German laws applying to the US. Hell, a business could REQUIRE a swastika here as long as it’s not a “public accomodation”. They’d probably get sued, but it’d be messy.
That was the original point, and it isn’t true, in any way.
Not as bad as Illinois nazi’s?
4 Likes
They are wrong in quite a few states (CA, NY, etc), and in all states letting an at-will employee go isn’t “firing” unless you can show misconduct. Not agreeing to campaign at work doesn’t qualify. They’d be able to draw unemployment, and it wouldn’t reflect negatively. Contract employees, they’d never get away with it unless the employee agreed to it on hiring.
The original point was that anyone in the US could be forced to wear swastikas at work, which is absurd, at-will, contract, “not public accommodation”, or anything else.
2 Likes
Just another example of how stacked our system is against employees, renters, and consumers. Basically in any situation, our system seeks by default to preserve whatever power imbalance is in place.
1 Like
The constitution, other than the provisions for slavery, is still very much useful and still a great document for outlining the nature of government. Most of our problems as a country stem from our country not living up to the goals of the constitution (and the Declaration of Independence).
The inability of people to read and understand the document is a failing of the public school systems. A failing which seems to be designed to make it easier to strip people of their rights…
The biggest problem is that the founding fathers explicitly defined the rights of the states and federal government, and only enumerated some of the rights reserved to the people; and we treat those rights as an exclusive list of guaranteed rights. They are not.
Now, the interpretation of the constitution has been a bit hit or miss. We should have had more constitutional scholars in politics; a working knowledge and understanding of civics and the constitution should be a minimal bar for politicians at any level of government, from HOA to the presidency.
4 Likes
OTOH, just look at the bigwigs of the original German Nazi party. Recruiting-poster Aryan physiques, the lot of them …
1 Like
Honestly? I think if people had beaten the living shit out of these two swastika wearing assholes, nobody would’ve seen a thing.
Technically the Pruneyard decision was based on the California constitution (and SCOTUS just affirmed that the CA Supreme Court can rule on its own constitution), but in any event it is one of those cases that as we lawyers like to say has been “limited to its facts” - meaning that it is unlikely to be extended and in fact could potentially be overruled. Wikipedia’s summary of subsequent developments is pretty good and like all things speech-law related Popehat has done good work on this:
(Great podcast if you care about free speech.)
