Liberals Urge Nation To Respect Minorities’ Opinions Until Those Opinions Contradict Them

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

A lot of people do not support hate organisations

They are only " hate" organizations because you don't agree with them. 

Kind of like how a lot of right wingers think the Black Panthers were a hate group. 

 

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

And Trump is blocking or attempting to block their free speech how?

 

I already answered your question. 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Boiler 45,467]

Tell that to the families of those killed.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

10 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Tell that to the families of those killed.

Haha, im not going to do a deep dive in this subject.
But it seems like you might be getting all of your black history from the wrong sources.

[jg121783 3,915]

46 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I already answered your question. 

 

 

No you didn't. But if you want to keep side stepping it that's okay. You make the assertion that Trump is impeding the free speech of the groups you listed but you don't say how. Let me give you a clue. Using your freedom of speech to speak out against groups you disagree with is not the same as impeding their freedom of speech.

Edited April 28, 2018 by jg121783

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

5 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

No you didn't. But if you want to keep side stepping it that's okay. You make the assertion that Trump is impeding the free speech of the groups you listed but you don't say how. Let me give you a clue. Using your freedom of speech to speak out against groups you disagree with is not the same as impeding their freedom of speech.

"this is a government official telling a private entity to fire one of its employees for expressing themselves. "

[jg121783 3,915]

Just now, Keith & Arileidi said:

"this is a government official telling a private entity to fire one of its employees for expressing themselves. "

Government officials also have a first amendment right. He said the players should be fired. It's not like he sent the military in or something to force the NFL to fire the players or used the government in any way to force them to do anything. He in no way impeded anyone's freedom of speech. If you can show me evidence he used the government to compel the NFL to fire the players then your argument might have some merit. That is even besides the point because as an employee when you are on the job your freedom of speech is inherently limited to what your employer thinks won't offend their customers. I know I already explained that once but maybe you didn't catch it.

[Boiler 45,467]

Didn't Starbucks sack somebody recently?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

25 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Government officials also have a first amendment right. He said the players should be fired. It's not like he sent the military in or something to force the NFL to fire the players or used the government in any way to force them to do anything. He in no way impeded anyone's freedom of speech. If you can show me evidence he used the government to compel the NFL to fire the players then your argument might have some merit. That is even besides the point because as an employee when you are on the job your freedom of speech is inherently limited to what your employer thinks won't offend their customers. I know I already explained that once but maybe you didn't catch it.

I never said it was illegal.
The whole point of my first post was Trump and his supporters do not honor the 1st amendment.

A government official like Trump, actively demanding that a player to be fired for protesting is indeed not honoring the 1st amendment.

You can not use a right to oppress another individual's right.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Boiler 45,467]

1 minute ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I never said it was illegal.
The whole point of my first post was Trump and his supporters do not honor the 1st amendment.

A government official like Trump, actively demanding that a player to be fired for protesting is indeed not honoring the 1st amendment.

You can not use a right to oppress another individual's right.

You seem to miss the point, they are not Government employees.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

12 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Didn't Starbucks sack somebody recently?

Star bucks is a private organization.
The 1st amendment itself is meant to protect private entities from government retribution.

Besides that detail...I think she quit.

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

You seem to miss the point, they are not Government employees.

No i did not miss the point.
That's why i originally put "honor" in my first post.
 

[Boiler 45,467]

1 minute ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

No i did not miss the point.
That's why i originally put "honour" in my first post.
 

I noticed the typo.

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I never said it was illegal.
The whole point of my first post was Trump and his supporters do not honor the 1st amendment.

Who is talking about legal versus illegal? I certainly didn't bring that up. I know what your point is and I have made counter arguments to it which you have yet to refute.

 

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

A government official like Trump, actively demanding that a player to be fired for protesting is indeed not honoring the 1st amendment.

It doesn't dishonor the first amendment either. Trump has the right to call for the firing of employees of a company that offend him and many other people. These football players can say and do whatever they want (within the confines of the law). But there are potential consequences for their actions. If you say or do something that is offensive to the customers of your employer they have the right to fire you. The customers also have the right to call you out and even demand your employer fire you when you do something that is offensive. The players are free to protest on their own time. When they are on the job however things are different.

 

2 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

You can not use a right to oppress another individual's right.

Who used a right to oppress another individual's right and how so? It is impossible to oppress someone else's rights when exercising your own rights within the confines of the law.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Who is talking about legal versus illegal? I certainly didn't bring that up. I know what your point is and I have made counter arguments to it which you have yet to refute.

 

It doesn't dishonor the first amendment either. Trump has the right to call for the firing of employees of a company that offend him and many other people. These football players can say and do whatever they want (within the confines of the law). But there are potential consequences for their actions. If you say or do something that is offensive to the customers of your employer they have the right to fire you. The customers also have the right to call you out and even demand your employer fire you when you do something that is offensive. The players are free to protest on their own time. When they are on the job however things are different.

 

Who used a right to oppress another individual's right and how so? It is impossible to oppress someone else's rights when exercising your own rights within the confines of the law.

There is zero right to protest while on someone else dime. 

Odd this never came up the 100's of times players have been fined for wearing unauthorized clothing or acting out in such a wat on the field to bring discredit.

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

6 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Who is talking about legal versus illegal? I certainly didn't bring that up. I know what your point is and I have made counter arguments to it which you have yet to refute.

 

It doesn't dishonor the first amendment either. Trump has the right to call for the firing of employees of a company that offend him and many other people. These football players can say and do whatever they want (within the confines of the law). But there are potential consequences for their actions. If you say or do something that is offensive to the customers of your employer they have the right to fire you. The customers also have the right to call you out and even demand your employer fire you when you do something that is offensive. The players are free to protest on their own time. When they are on the job however things are different.

 

Who used a right to oppress another individual's right and how so? It is impossible to oppress someone else's rights when exercising your own rights within the confines of the law.

Umm you are. 

And yes it does.