Because you and I are decent people, and this poor person’s boss is worthless, pathetic scum.
I think you might be overstating it. Some lawyers are awfully good at finding some statute that they can try to make a case for, and a lot of really shitty cases don’t automatically get dismissed. I recently served on a jury in a wrongful termination suit. The plaintiff’s theories were pretty weak, but it made it all the way through trial. In the article, it says Gobbell “consulted a lawyer”, then changed her mind about going to see the lawyer. Sounds to me like at least one lawyer seemed interested enough in the case that she was considering meeting with him.
Considering that Bush wasn’t (directly) responsible for her firing, I don’t think that’d fly.
Sure, Kerry could rail against the dipstick boss who fired her, but what’s the advantage in that?
Sorry, Random, I guess I fell into the trap of believing that law and justivce have some relationship to each other. Silly of me. But I didn’t attack you personally, and I see no reason for your name-cailing even if this is the Pit. Did you say before that you were a lawyer? It’s obvious you aren’t a civil one.
Nonsense. It’s his property.
Yeah, actually it dawned on me later that Kerry voted for the Patriot [sic] Act. So, I guess that would clip its wings as well. […sigh…]
The car is hers.
I believe he was refering to the business and the parking lot.
I know that. But the bumper sticker and the car are hers. The boss clearly initiated heavy-handed coersion to try to make her remove the sticker. Why are his “rights” more important than hers?
My theory – if I’ve agreed to employ you, and provide you with a place to park in order that you may transport yourself to work, I’ve implicitly consented to your placing your vehicle – your personal property – complete with whatever you choose to place on it within the bounds of accepted civil usage – on my real property – the parking lot I’m providing for you.
And that boss’s company has just picked up a plethora of negative publicity.
On the other hand, today’s noon news (WRAL-TV, here in Raleigh) used a news feed from Alabama on the case – and John Kerry took action to ensure that this woman did not suffer for standing for her political convictions. After thanking and congratulating her profusely for standing up for his campaign, he offered her a job working for his campaign, at a higher rate of pay than the $9 an hour she’d been making from “the Bushista Company.”
What a stupid question. Are you saying that if I pull into your driveway, my rights trump yours? She can park her car somewhere else.
I’m afraid the phrase, “within the bounds of accepted civil usage”, which you might have added as an afterthought, considering the onerous possibilities of what a sign might say, you’ve simply raised another question; namely, who decides what is acceptable? If you say the majority, then don’t complain when the majority bans gay marriage or flag burning.
Which, as you well know, means that since there is no public property anywhere in Libertopia, no one has any liberty in Libertopia except property owners, and then only when they’re sitting at home. What a wonderful place that Libertopia is!
Politicians just love how dumb you are. It is no different in Libertopia than Ameritopia — except that here, politicians own your land. It’s still the owners calling the shots.
I don’t have this precisely defined, but it’s common consent that you may display a bumper sticker expressing your views, wear a T-shirt with a slogan on it, etc., and common consent is that you’re not doing anything out of the ordinary. On the other hand, there are things you may physically and legally do which are presently restricted by permit or other legal methodology. You may not, for example, erect a full-size billboard in your front yard expressing your political leanings, not because anyone wants to restrict your right to expression, but because its size and incongruity cause a traffic hazard by being a distraction, are considered to “disfigure” the neighborhood ambience, and may reduce your neighbors’ property values without their consent. Likewise, coming to work in a panel truck on which you have emblazoned your personal idee fixe or bete noire in large letters and graphic imagery is considered a bit beyond the pale.
There is not a clear and definable line there – but some things are accepted personal expression, and others are a trespass on the sensibilities of those with whom you come in contact. And defining that line could be tricky – but I take a “Potter Stewart” approach to it.
Then why impose upon someone else something that is so nebulous, even to yourself? Why not let the parking lot’s owner define for himself what he will and will not allow to be displayed in it?
Let’s see. Her boss includes a pro-Bush letter in with her paycheck. She, knowing full well that her boss is a Bush supporter, drives to work with a pro-Kerry sticker on her car.
Yup, that makes them both assholes. I hate people who think they can order me who to vote for, and that goes for my boss, my husband, AND the parish priest. I also hate people who wear their politics on their sleeves and then act all indignant when confronted with equally passionate people on the opposing side.
If I invite you to my house, then I’m not going to demand that you remove a bumper sticker from your car. Because, yes, your right to your own bumper sticker is more important than my right for you not to sully my driveway. Libertopia is nothing but petty fiefdoms and this thread demonstrates the absolute inanity of it.
A work contract is an agreement between parties for specific functions. What car I drive or what bumper stickers I have on it are unrelated to the job unless it’s specified in the employment agreement. Nowhere I have ever worked has tried to impose on my bumper sticker choice, and I suspect this asshole hadn’t previously stipulated in the employee handbook that he could arbitrarily tell you to remove one.
So because there are weak points in the liberty protections of a democracy, we should just throw them entirely out? Is that what you’re saying?
I have no problem with honest libertarians - people who think that property rights should trump all others. I think they’re dead wrong, but they don’t bother me much. You, however, are either a fucking idiot, or completely disingenuous, since you pretend to care about liberty, and vomit forth this glurge declaring that there would be less coercion under libertarianism than there is under something approximately like what we have.
Sure, governments are by their nature coercive, and ofttimes repressive and ugly. However, privatizing all government functions would only serve to privatize the coercion while at the same time removing all checks and balances on the coercive power. If you think that will result in more liberty rather than less, then you don’t have any understanding of human nature.
I will admit, though, that politicians won’t be caring much about how stupid you are, because raving lunatics don’t much matter in the grand scheme of things.
Kerry has rewarded the worker for sticking to her beliefs.
By hiring her.
Goebel relating to a phone conversation with Kerry.
What a guy.