100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Honor the flag or take a seat on the bench | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 10/16/17 03:42 PM
|
|
I have a question to ask. Are there ever times where job mandates are actually a violation of civil rights , and therefore subject to revision, which I think one of the posters here was suggesting? I asked because I heard an American Lawyer say that displays of silent protests are part and parcel of an American's basic civic rights , and I wasn't sure under what contest that this is true In my opinion, I am not a lawyer or expert but IMHO there are two separate issues that get mixed up with the discussion of 'rights', particularly speech, religion, and press The ideal and the implementation the ideal of 'rights'(regarding speech, religion, and press) as a notion of what we 'should be able to do' stems often from the constitutions list of what CONGRESS can or cant do. 1st Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Often times the discussion of 'rights' is brought up in matters that Congress had nothing to do with. as in an employer/employee or other type of contract in the civilian world. Often times, similarly , when it comes to contracts that are in some way TIED TO GOVERNMENT, rights come up they really only apply legally in the latter situation, as far as I understand. However PUBLIC OPINION in any position that involves public exposure and someones pocketbook will almost always be able to find grounds for questioning the contractual agreements through some type of litigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good question Peggy,maybe more so in the military to a degree, here that is, many other jobs have rules that you accept when you take the job on or sign a contract. I'm sure someone will elaborate on this for you. 
That makes sense mikey but then one wonders if even contracts are secondary to civil law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the lawyer is right but what and where one is protesting might be a problem. If one wants to protest something while at work that would violate the boss's right to make money. He would then enact his civil right to fire you. that also makes sense to me as well Alleop |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, while at work, especially for elected or appointed government officials like Kim Davis who violated the rights of gay couples by denying them legal marriage licenses claiming it violated her religious beliefs..she lost the civil suit against her, lost her appeal plea, and supreme court appeal and ultimately spent 5 days in jail for contempt of court... i wonder whatever became of her ? Great example Argo! I actually forgot about her. Thanks for reminding me ,as she wss indeed a great poster child for the conflict between contractual obligations versus civil rights. Cheers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question to ask. Are there ever times where job mandates are actually a violation of civil rights , and therefore subject to revision, which I think one of the posters here was suggesting? I asked because I heard an American Lawyer say that displays of silent protests are part and parcel of an American's basic civic rights , and I wasn't sure under what contest that this is true In my opinion, I am not a lawyer or expert but IMHO there are two separate issues that get mixed up with the discussion of 'rights', particularly speech, religion, and press The ideal and the implementation the ideal of 'rights'(regarding speech, religion, and press) as a notion of what we 'should be able to do' stems often from the constitutions list of what CONGRESS can or cant do. 1st Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Often times the discussion of 'rights' is brought up in matters that Congress had nothing to do with. as in an employer/employee or other type of contract in the civilian world. Often times, similarly , when it comes to contracts that are in some way TIED TO GOVERNMENT, rights come up they really only apply legally in the latter situation, as far as I understand. However PUBLIC OPINION in any position that involves public exposure and someones pocketbook will almost always be able to find grounds for questioning the contractual agreements through some type of litigation. thanks Ms H. 
I guess maybe we have to leave it up to the lawyers to fight it out in court then . Sigh... |
|
|
|
|
