Stanley cup winner snubs President for political reasons

[mnemosyne]

@Jack_Batty

A. So, what? Obama = Satan?

2. Produce a Satan for someone to shake hands with, and you might approach a point.

Satan.

Though he’s not exactly controversial.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@miss_elizabeth

Jerry Sandusky wasn’t a closet homosexual, he was a pedophile.

You really think that there is a distinction in the mind of someone that would make that kind of mistake to begin with? Sexual deviance = sexual deviance. Homosexuality = bestiality/pedophilia/necrophilia/whatever. Its the basis of their objection to gay marriage isn’t it?

@ch4rl3s

“I heard you donated to the Conservatives. We’re Librul 'round here. You donate to our candidates, and be seen with who we say. You’re fired.” (or vise versa)

You can’t possibly say your employer can dictate to you any type of political activity.

You think this doesn’t happen?

There was a wealthy midwest gasket supplier who used to send out letters to all his vendors and imply that his business relationship with you would depend on contributing to the campaigns of the candidates he lists in his annual letter.

[Guinastasia]

@Jack_Batty

A. So, what? Obama = Satan?

2. Produce a Satan for someone to shake hands with, and you might approach a point.

He got his Cup ring with the Penguins though, not with the Bruins.
(I’m still waiting for him to sign a contract with New Jersey.)

[ch4rl3s]

@Kobal2

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
I disagree with those who think an invite to the White House isn’t political. It isn’t necessary for the president to congratulate them like this.

It’s not necessary, but it is apparently traditional. What kind of political points would you think Obama was scoring or trying to score here ?
[/QUOTE]

If it’s traditional… then some people will judge him if he doesn’t… So, not doing it loses potential votes. That’s politics.
It may be non-partisan, but it’s not non-political.

[ch4rl3s]

@Damuri_Ajashi

[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
“I heard you donated to the Conservatives. We’re Librul 'round here. You donate to our candidates, and be seen with who we say. You’re fired.” (or vise versa)

You can’t possibly say your employer can dictate to you any type of political activity.

You think this doesn’t happen?

There was a wealthy midwest gasket supplier who used to send out letters to all his vendors and imply that his business relationship with you would depend on contributing to the campaigns of the candidates he lists in his annual letter.
[/QUOTE]

Just because it happens doesn’t make it right. But, this isn’t the same situation. Choosing who you buy from, you can use any criteria you like. It would be totally different if he tried to do the same thing with who he was willing to sell to. (well, at least, that is if he has a public store. And most people are less discriminating with who they sell to naturally, since they have to sell their goods.) But firing someone for something that doesn’t impact their job performance strikes me a something that shouldn’t be allowed. And even in some cases where it does affect job performance we’re willing to protect them from discrimination.

Unless your job description has a reason to specify a certain religious or political stance, I don’t see why there should be any right of discrimination.

This has to do with who you can refuse service to.
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were…

…For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their “colors,” or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members’ unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

And this has to do with who you can fire.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/know-your-rights-freedom-religion

The EEOC website gives some guidelines on how to prevent discrimination in the workplace based on religion.

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs.
The law protects people belonging to traditional organized religions and those who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

I would say this situation comes under ethical or moral beliefs.

[Raygun99]

Hey, look! His crazy’s gone into overdrive!

[Guinastasia]

In this case, at least he’s just speaking his own mind, and not doing it on anyone else’s time though.
ch4rl3s, once again, this wasn’t a political visit, it was to promote the Bruins franchise. Yet AGAIN, he was screwing his teammates, his friends. All of the examples from your link were religious. Not political. Last time I checked, the White House wasn’t a church.
(Oh, and I think Satan plays for the KHL now, doesn’t he?)