2 Likes
I find it to be an infinetly useful constitution. As constitutions go, I would certainly rate it among the most liberal, if not at the top. In fact, I would say that what is amazing about the US is not so much the people, since they are from everywhere, nor the flag, nor certainly the pledge of alliagence, even the grandios landscape, although varied and wonderful, have just as amazing competition in the rest of the planet, It is the Constitution. That is what makes this place so special to me and others who have lived under much lesser governing documents.
1 Like
They’re really gonna have ration those cheesy poofs if they want them to last a year.
7 Likes
Nobody has asked the most important question: what did they buy???
Zoom in on the video. Mostly crap, particularly the oversized tub of cheesy poofs @knoxblox mentions.
6 Likes
I kinda think the people arguing that it is allowed by law never took a compliance class. Displaying even something like porn openly is considered sexual harassment. Employers can’t even discipline you, in any way, for reporting it, even if you, personally don’t take offense. The EEOC says specifically
Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols.
Given what it symbolizes, a swastika is offensive regarding race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, etc, disability, etc., etc., the whole package. All those were tests as to whether or not someone was fit to not be murdered in a gas chamber.
Actually displaying it in the workplace at all would be enough to report them, asking them to wear it? How anyone can even imagine that being allowed federally, at-will or not, boggles the mind.
4 Likes
I can easily imagine it. People don’t know their rights, and especially in small business environments, owners think they can make their employees do anything they want.
3 Likes
Look closely at the shoddiness of the emblems, the coarse stitching around the circumference of the circle. It’s obviously a home-made badge over the red cloth (which, ironically, probably aids in its filtration effectiveness).
1 Like
Which means they actually took the time to carefully stitch swastikas, by hand… they aren’t your average bourgeoisie, “I spent 5 minutes ordering my swatika online because it was convenient” type nazis.
When push comes to shove, that is the real power behind people like Trump. If he couldn’t find an intern to order his swastika, he’d just do without.
1 Like
The first two sentences of one of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, would disagree with you.
2 Likes
An employee not knowing their legal rights is a far cry from the assertion that an employer could legal require that they wear a swastika.
3 Likes
I totally missed that. Wow, that makes it even worse.
I know a guy who is the only Trump supporter I willingly allow (extremely begrudgingly) in my life. It’s very complicated, but he’s family. Not direct blood- but it’s damn complicated.
He’s the only one I give any kind of pass to- but I still call out his bullshit.
He calls our governor Tom Wolfe a nazi for mandating face masks. I wonder what he’d do if I showed him actual nazis support Trump?
I’m increasingly leaning towards “with an industrial tree stump remover.”
1 Like
FTFY.
FTFY.
Thank you for emphasising my point.
No. Roaches thrive in darkness.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive: if SCOTUS recognised a hate-speech exception to the 1A, it would not be a moderate, gradualist development, no matter how welcome it might be. And I’m not sure Biden would be able to appoint enough justices to make it happen (assuming he’s sympathetic to the idea): have the four Clinton/Obama justices shown signs of favouring such an exception? If not, you’re going to need more than one or two new justices.
2 Likes
11 Likes
@LutherBlisset
No. Most recently in 2017, the justices unanimously reaffirmed there is no hate speech exception to the first amendment. That was in Matal v. Tam, a case about the government trying to prohibit racially offensive trademarks.
Not only would we need at least 5 new justices to create a hate speech exception, they’d need to be five justices totally willing to ignore one (and thus, presumably, many) of the strongest and longest lasting precedents in US jurisprudence, but still somehow able to get confirmed by the Senate.
2 Likes
Florida Man and mate vacationing in Minnesota?
