PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Koran burner fired from job


petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:05 PM
The protestor who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero was fired from NJ Transit over the controversial act, sources and authorities said yesterday.

Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.

Fenton was ushered from the protests by police and questioned, but he was released without charges.

"He said this is America, and he wanted to stand up for it, in a Tea Party kind of way," a police source said.

Another police source said Fenton described himself as a "loyal American" exercising his "right to protest."

Still, that source said Fenton looked like he was having second thoughts as he was released.

"He looked nervous, like he was starting to think it wasn't such a good idea," the police source said.

Fenton burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside of Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero. He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the books that day but later changed his mind.

Described by neighbors as a likable family guy with two children, Fenton was an assistant train consist coordinator, a job that entails ensuring there are enough train cars positioned to be put into service, sources said. He previously worked as a NJ Transit conductor.

NJ Transit confirmed Fenton was fired but wouldn't elaborate.

"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said. "NJ TRANSIT concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore was dismissed."

Several neighbors in Fenton's Bloomingdale neighborhood stood up for his right to express himself with flames.

"Good for him for burning the Koran," neighbor Jacqui Marquez, 40, said. "Everybody's entitled to their opinion ... by firing him, they're sending a message that there's no freedom of speech. They're completely wrong for doing this."

"He's a family man," neighbor Randy McConnell, 43, said. "He loves his kids and he loves trains. I don't agree with what he did, but he shouldn't lose his job over it. That's his right."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at_nj_transit.html#ixzz0zYlv1ykh

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:07 PM
I am not saying there aren't consequences to exercising Free Speech. But to fire the guy claiming he violated "ethics" policies comes across as fishy. Is it bad ethics to exercise your 1st Amendment?

He did not do it as an agent of his employer or associate them with his actions in any way.

As legally right as his employer may be to do so, I think this sort of action sends even a worse message than what the man was accused of sending by burning a Koran (Quran, Qu'ran, Kuran)

And since when does firing someone for exercising free speech violate the "trust as a state employee"?

Doesn't that really amount to the employer violating a person's trust in our Constitutional laws?

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:08 PM
Apparently the NJ Transit appreciates their Muslim riders.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:11 PM
Apparently the NJ Transit appreciates their Muslim riders.

Good for them. What is your point?

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:13 PM
It is fishy but ya' know three people are dead when US troops fired on the anti-American demonstrators in Afghanistan who were stoked by the act.

Meanwhile some Jewish youths burn New Testaments in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/orthodox-jewish-youths-burn-new-testaments-in-or-yehuda-1.246153

I think it's time this stuff stop on all sides. It just escalates things because people copy bad behavior to try to make themselves right.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:13 PM
Good for them. What is your point?

The NJ Transit's keeping the moron could reasonably send the message that they are okay with his actions.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 08:14 PM
Good for them. What is your point?

Seriously?

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:15 PM
The NJ Transit's keeping the moron could reasonably send the message that they are okay with his actions.

:facepalm:

You mean his non-violent exercising of his right to free speech?

Saul Good
09-14-2010, 08:16 PM
The Transit Authority probably appreciates their vegan riders. They should fire anyone who eats meat.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:16 PM
:facepalm:

You mean his non-violent exercising of his right to free speech?

His burning of the Koran, yes.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:16 PM
Seriously?

Yeah, seriously.

So let me ask here in a stero-typical manner, are the cab companies going to fire all the arabs who go out and protest against Jews and such all the time in NY?

Pioli Zombie
09-14-2010, 08:18 PM
Conversatives are always crying that employers have a right to hire or fire whoever they want but when its done to a fucking nut burning pages of a Koran suddenly his rights are violated.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:18 PM
His burning of the Koran, yes.

Political correctness run amuck. Might as well just axe the 1st amendment.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:19 PM
The Transit Authority probably appreciates their vegan riders. They should fire anyone who eats meat.

You think eating meat at home or in restaurants, something 99% of human beings do, is analogous to a public protest featuring the burning of a people's holy scripture?

That was kind of idiotic.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:20 PM
Political correctness run amuck. Might as well just axe the 1st amendment.

That's weird. It's preventing him from the possibility of being imprisoned. Seems like a great thing.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:22 PM
You think eating meat at home or in restaurants, something 99% of human beings do, is analogous to a public protest featuring the burning of a people's holy scripture?

That was kind of idiotic.

Um, I am sorry, maybe you can tell me what the guy did that was illegal? I am sure the NJ tax payers appreciate another person being added to the unemployment roles for such an idiotic reason.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:24 PM
That's weird. It's preventing him from the possibility of being imprisoned. Seems like a great thing.

Dude, if ethics is now the standard then there are a whole lot of people who should be out of a job well before this guy.

OH NOES! HE BURNED A KORAN!!! Fire him!!!!

Pioli Zombie
09-14-2010, 08:24 PM
How about if he was urinating on a picture of Jesus while burning a Bible? Would you still be as concerned with your boys rights?

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:25 PM
Conversatives are always crying that employers have a right to hire or fire whoever they want but when its done to a ****ing nut burning pages of a Koran suddenly his rights are violated.

Umm....private employers. Govt is different in some respects. They can't discriminate because of politics or free speech. Then it becomes govt violating a right with punishment.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:25 PM
Um, I am sorry, maybe you can tell me what the guy did that was illegal? I am sure the NJ tax payers appreciate another perons being added to the unemployment roles for such an idiotic reason.

I'm sorry, are you confused as to why he was fired? I'll help you out -- it wasn't because he did something that was illegal. Just like the numerous employees who badmouthed (insert store)'s customers on facebook and are fired.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:26 PM
How about if he was urinating on a picture of Jesus while burning a Bible? Would you still be as concerned with your boys rights?

WTF are you talking about? People create bullshit portayals of Jesus and have it called art!!

If the guy wants to piss on a pic of Jesus and burn the Bible screaming "God Damn America" while doing it, it is HIS RIGHT!

You can chalk this guys' firing up to yet another victory for uh-hum, radical Islam.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:26 PM
Dude, if ethics is now the standard then there are a whole lot of people who should be out of a job well before this guy.

OH NOES! HE BURNED A KORAN!!! Fire him!!!!

I think breaking a companies code of ethics is generally a great reason to be fired.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:27 PM
If the guy wants to piss on a pic of Jesus and burn the Bible screaming "God Damn America" while doing it, it is HIS RIGHT!

Yes! It's his right! Do not put him in prison!

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:28 PM
I'm sorry, are you confused as to why he was fired? I'll help you out -- it wasn't because he did something that was illegal. Just like the numerous employees who badmouthed (insert store)'s customers on facebook and are fired.

Bad mouthing your employer publicly is not the same as what this guy did. Keep spinning out the excuses though.

FTR, Union members bad mouth their employers all the time and somehow the Dems and Fed Gov want to ensure they are protected. Irony.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:29 PM
I think breaking a companies code of ethics is generally a great reason to be fired.

They need to elaborate on what ethics were violated. I bet you can go up and down the executive branch of his employer and find much more meaningful violations of ethics.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:29 PM
You can chalk this guys' firing up to yet another victory for uh-hum, radical Islam.

I wouldn't go that far.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:30 PM
Bad mouthing your employer publicly is not the same as what this guy did. Keep spinning out the excuses though.

FTR, Union members bad mouth their employers all the time and somehow the Dems and Fed Gov want to ensure they are protected. Irony.

Read my post again, carefully. It's not bad-mouthing your employer. It's bad-mouthing your employer's customers.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:31 PM
Read my post again, carefully. It's not bad-mouthing your employer. It's bad-mouthing your employer's customers.

:facepalm:

Again, something I will lay money on that happens on a daily basis in the NJ Transit

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:31 PM
I wouldn't go that far.

Why not?

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:33 PM
:facepalm:

Again, something I will lay money on that happens on a daily basis in the NJ Transit

And then realize that this is more than just bad-mouthing one customer. This is an act of aggression that a whole population of customers, not even just Muslims, would find blatantly offensive.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 08:34 PM
Yeah, seriously.

So let me ask here in a stero-typical manner, are the cab companies going to fire all the arabs who go out and protest against Jews and such all the time in NY?

It us up to the company. This is a city job he should have expected this.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:35 PM
Why not?

I just wouldn't. Besides he was acting like those that are called radical Islamacists.

Pioli Zombie
09-14-2010, 08:39 PM
Now being against someones faith being publicly shit on by having their holy scripture set on fire is considered gross political correctness.
Like burning the Koran is normal acceptable behavior. What a fucking country this has become.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:39 PM
I just wouldn't. Besides he was acting like those that are called radical Islamacists.

Really? I guess I missed the part where he sawed off someone's head then drug the body behind a jeep for a while before finally hanging the body off of a bridge.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:41 PM
And then realize that this is more than just bad-mouthing one customer. This is an act of aggression that a whole population of customers, not even just Muslims, would find blatantly offensive.

This is an act of agression??? Are you fucking serious? Like I said, political correctness run amuck.

Brock
09-14-2010, 08:41 PM
Oh noes he made the muslims mad, we must kowtow to them!

petegz28
09-14-2010, 08:42 PM
Now being against someones faith being publicly shit on by having their holy scripture set on fire is considered gross political correctness.
Like burning the Koran is normal acceptable behavior. What a ****ing country this has become.

You mean like the things the people who our soldiers are protecting and dying for do every day?

Again I say we might as well just axe the 1st amendment and replace it with wording to say you cannot say anything that may offend someone.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 08:43 PM
Pete if you burned a Koran and your picture was all over the Internet I bet you would get fired. It would happen to all of us.

Brock
09-14-2010, 08:44 PM
Pete if you burned a Koran and your picture was all over the Internet I bet you would get fired. It would happen to all of us.

LMAO Riiight.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:44 PM
This is an act of agression??? Are you ****ing serious? Like I said, political correctness run amuck.

LMAO

Yes. Believe it or not, angrily ripping out pages of a holy book and burning them in public is an act of hostility.

Aggression isn't limited to decapitating someone.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 08:45 PM
LMAO Riiight.

You don't think?

People get fired for posting shit on Facebook

Brock
09-14-2010, 08:46 PM
You don't think?

People get fired for posting shit on Facebook

Sure, posting shit about the company they work for, or talking drugs and shit.

Jenson71
09-14-2010, 08:47 PM
Again I say we might as well just axe the 1st amendment and replace it with wording to say you cannot say anything that may offend someone.

You don't understand your rights very well. This man is not being charged with a crime. He's not being fined by the government nor being held in confinement by the government. That's exactly what the First Amendment prevents. It doesn't give you a right to a salary.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:48 PM
You don't think?

People get fired for posting shit on Facebook

I think it could happen. Some firms may not want the negative PR just from the controversy. They might even have business contacts and clients in the ME.

Brock
09-14-2010, 08:48 PM
They have a union, problem is this guy is probably a union hater.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 08:49 PM
Sure, posting shit about the company they work for, or talking drugs and shit.

Or posting pictures that they may find inappropriate. Don't you think that is less egregious than burning the Koran in front of the whole world?

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:50 PM
Really? I guess I missed the part where he sawed off someone's head then drug the body behind a jeep for a while before finally hanging the body off of a bridge.

There's a war going on over there. Things like that happen especially when we choose to do battle with people who fight the way they do. They're not Westerners. We have soldiers that commit atrocities too. Besides, we're occupying their country.

Brock
09-14-2010, 08:50 PM
Or posting pictures that they may find inappropriate. Don't you think that is less egregious than burning the Koran in front of the whole world?

I don't think there's anything wrong with burning the Koran or any other inanimate object.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:53 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with burning the Koran or any other inanimate object.

Doesn't matter. It's the perception the organization doesn't want.

ROYC75
09-14-2010, 08:54 PM
I smell a lawsuit.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 08:55 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with burning the Koran or any other inanimate object.

You might not but the company you work for might.

Most companies have policies in place to discipline or terminate employees that embarrass or bring negative attention to the company in some fashion. Which pretty much means anything.

Brock
09-14-2010, 08:56 PM
Doesn't matter. It's the perception the organization doesn't want.

Well, I think they're going to be forced to make this guy whole before it's all over. This isn't a private company, it's a government agency.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2010, 08:59 PM
Well, I think they're going to be forced to make this guy whole before it's all over. This isn't a private company, it's a government agency.

I agree it's different when it's a govt agency. Just maintaining public relations is about perception though for a private firm. Although, I wonder if the govt feels his acts may incite violence on public property now ....so they had to act. That could be a possible defense.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 09:01 PM
Pete if you burned a Koran and your picture was all over the Internet I bet you would get fired. It would happen to all of us.

I don't disagree. That doesn't make it right though, now does it?

petegz28
09-14-2010, 09:03 PM
You don't understand your rights very well. This man is not being charged with a crime. He's not being fined by the government nor being held in confinement by the government. That's exactly what the First Amendment prevents. It doesn't give you a right to a salary.

No where did I ever claim it did.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 09:12 PM
I don't disagree. That doesn't make it right though, now does it?

Sure it does.

BTW New Jersey is an at-will state and this is in the application that they fill out. I don't know what position he had and whether or not it is covered by a labor agreement

I understand that if I am employed in a position not covered by a labor agreement, my employment will be "at will", and that my
employment can be terminated at any time, with or without cause and with or without advance notice, by either the Company or myself.

petegz28
09-14-2010, 09:15 PM
Sure it does.

BTW New Jersey is an at-will state and this is in the application that they fill out. I don't know what position he had and whether or not it is covered by a labor agreement

I don't think they are right in firing him. And I do believe I said in the OP they are well within their legal rights to do so.

dirk digler
09-14-2010, 09:20 PM
I don't think they are right in firing him. And I do believe I said in the OP they are well within their legal rights to do so.

Actually I think you and Brock might be right. Since this is a government job he is protected by the First Amendment. Since burning the flag is protected free speech so will this.

If this was a private employer he would have no case though.

ForeverChiefs58
09-14-2010, 09:28 PM
wait until someone who is pro mosque gets fired because so much of the population find that offensive.

I am sure the NJ Transit appreciates about 80% of the population so they would fire someone who was pro mosque?

cdcox
09-14-2010, 09:43 PM
As a provider of public transportation the NJ Transit has an obligation to provide transportation to the public without regard to their race, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, etc. If they do not live up to this obligation, they will be sued under Civil Rights laws.

If one of their employees makes a highly publicized public act that can easily be interpreted as his dislike or hatred of a particular group of people, it infringes on his employer's mission. This is because he may be recognized for holding these opinions during the course of doing his job as representative of the NJ Transit due to his highly publicized public act.

Transit users belonging to the attacked group are likely to feel uncomfortable and unwelcomed on trains where this individual is working, especially if he is in a position of responsibility. The worker's opinions can be attached to the Transit authority itself since the individual who has openly demonstrated ill feelings toward the group is in a position of responsibility.

By keeping this worker employed, the Transit authority would be assuming financial liability related to the employee's actions. This is because if a later charge of discrimination were to ensue, whether related to this individual or not, the actions of this employee and NJTA's continual employment of him could be argued in court to have contributed to a perceived atmosphere of condoning negative attitudes toward certain groups. The NJTA is under no obligation to assume this additional financial liability.

Conversely, by dismissing the employee, the NJTA sends a message that they do not want to be associated with persons who hold negative attitudes toward certain groups of people. The people from the attacked group, and other underrepresented groups, appreciate the sensitivity of NJTA in providing a secure and discrimination-free mode of public transportation. Disciplining this employee enhances their mission.

None of this impinges on the individuals right to free expression as long as the individual is willing to bear the consequences of his expression. I don't find any right in the constitution to be protected from the consequences of your actions.

chiefzilla1501
09-14-2010, 09:51 PM
As a provider of public transportation the NJ Transit has an obligation to provide transportation to the public without regard to their race, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, etc. If they do not live up to this obligation, they will be sued under Civil Rights laws.

If one of their employees makes a highly publicized public act that can easily be interpreted as his dislike or hatred of a particular group of people, it infringes on his employer's mission. This is because he may be recognized for holding these opinions during the course of doing his job as representative of the NJ Transit due to his highly publicized public act.

Transit users belonging to the attacked group are likely to feel uncomfortable and unwelcomed on trains where this individual is working, especially if he is in a position of responsibility. The worker's opinions can be attached to the Transit authority itself since the individual who has openly demonstrated ill feelings toward the group is in a position of responsibility.

By keeping this worker employed, the Transit authority would be assuming financial liability related to the employee's actions. This is because if a later charge of discrimination were to ensue, whether related to this individual or not, the actions of this employee and NJTA's continual employment of him could be argued in court to have contributed to a perceived atmosphere of condoning negative attitudes toward certain groups. The NJTA is under no obligation to assume this additional financial liability.

Conversely, by dismissing the employee, the NJTA sends a message that they do not want to be associated with persons who hold negative attitudes toward certain groups of people. The people from the attacked group, and other underrepresented groups, appreciate the sensitivity of NJTA in providing a secure and discrimination-free mode of public transportation. Disciplining this employee enhances their mission.

None of this impinges on the individuals right to free expression as long as the individual is willing to bear the consequences of his expression. I don't find any right in the constitution to be protected from the consequences of your actions.

Lawyered

orange
09-14-2010, 09:51 PM
New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, September 2010

II. GENERAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

4. No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his/her acts that he/she may be engaged in conduct violative of his trust as a State officer or employee or special State officer or employee.

http://www.state.nj.us/ethics/docs/ethics/uniformcode.pdf


....

I also saw somewhere that he's an at-will employee. He should probably start crafting an apology or looking for another job.

Taco John
09-14-2010, 09:56 PM
I wouldn't want the guy working for me.

ClevelandBronco
09-14-2010, 10:58 PM
Fire the asshole, settle the inevitable lawsuit and move on.

Dallas Chief
09-14-2010, 11:22 PM
I think breaking a companies code of ethics is generally a great reason to be fired.

Now the state government = a company? You've got it all twisted up youngster.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 05:23 AM
wait until someone who is pro mosque gets fired because so much of the population find that offensive.

I am sure the NJ Transit appreciates about 80% of the population so they would fire someone who was pro mosque?

Being pro mosque is comparable to being pro church which falls under freedom of religion. That's not being anti anything nor anti another's faith. That's not an aggressive act either.

Jenson71
09-15-2010, 07:01 AM
No where did I ever claim it did.

Your whole argument is based on this man having a right to his job based on the First Amendment.

I understand that there's the element of the NJ Transit being a publically subsidized service. That doesn't mean its employers are protected under the First Amendment to say "Fuck you, n*gger" everytime a black guy gets on the bus.

Jenson71
09-15-2010, 07:11 AM
Now the state government = a company? You've got it all twisted up youngster.

The NJ Transit is not the state government. But yes, it can, along with other publically funded enterprises, be considered a company. Think of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the Tennessee Valley Authority or Amtrak.

The New Jersey Transit has a board of directors, a president, does advertisments, and a lot of other things that show it's a company. It can go out of business.

I don't know why that's so "twisted" to recognize.

Saulbadguy
09-15-2010, 07:14 AM
I imagine i'd get fired from my job if I was batshit crazy, too.

jspchief
09-15-2010, 07:45 AM
wait until someone who is pro mosque gets fired because so much of the population find that offensive.

I am sure the NJ Transit appreciates about 80% of the population so they would fire someone who was pro mosque?I agree with the guy getting fired, or I guess more accurately don't dispute the decision to fire him.

But I do think you raise a valid question. Reverse the roles of the muslim and christian, and there would inevitably be an outcry of racism (religionism?) from the muslim community and the NAACP. IMO.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2010, 08:20 AM
The NJ Transit's keeping the moron could reasonably send the message that they are okay with his actions.


Except the transit is the governemnt and the governemnt just violated his 1st Amendment Rights.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2010, 08:21 AM
His burning of the Koran, yes.

It's politcal speech and it's protected in this country. Presidents, flags, and all manner of things have been burned to exercise freedom of expression. It's not only his right to burn it, but ours to protect his rights with our actions and speech.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2010, 08:23 AM
It us up to the company. This is a city job he should have expected this.

It's a government job and what they did was violate his first amendment rights.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2010, 08:24 AM
I smell a lawsuit.

I do as well and he'll win.

jiveturkey
09-15-2010, 08:49 AM
I don't see how his 1st amendment right was violated???

He's not going to jail.

Are people who post stupid shit about their boss or job on Facebook being violated as well?

jjjayb
09-15-2010, 08:55 AM
The million dollar question. Will the ACLU rush to his defense?

Frazod
09-15-2010, 09:01 AM
The thing that pisses me off about this is that if he was anything but white, he wouldn't even get a reprimand.

BWillie
09-15-2010, 09:04 AM
Usually I'm on the side that someone should be able to be fired for alot of things, but I think this might be a little too far. He did everything peacefully from what I've heard. He didn't berate or assault anybody in particular. Pretty soon you are going to be able to get fired for being religious or for voicing your political agenda outside of work. What if you were outside somewhere protesting against people that eat meat? You apparently can get fired for protesting. This is just too far.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 10:07 AM
I GUARANTEE if he had done the same with a King James Bible he would not have been reprimanded.

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 10:21 AM
White Christian persecution fever, catch it!!!

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 10:25 AM
I GUARANTEE if he had done the same with a King James Bible he would not have been reprimanded.

Orthodox Jewish Youths in Israel burning New Testaments didn't get remprimanded either.

"I [ Deputy Mayor of the Israeli Town] certainly don't denounce the burning of the booklets, he said. I denounce those who distributed the booklets."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/orthodox-jewish-youths-burn-new-testaments-in-or-yehuda-1.246153

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 10:27 AM
Orthodox Jewish Youths in Israel burning New Testaments didn't get remprimanded either.



http://www.haaretz.com/news/orthodox-jewish-youths-burn-new-testaments-in-or-yehuda-1.246153

Were the 'utes state employees?

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 10:29 AM
Were the 'utes state employees?

The Mayor is a city employee. But that wasn't my point. I was just responding to the other poster's comment by itself regarding getting a reprimand for a similar act.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 10:33 AM
White Christian persecution fever, catch it!!!

Has nothing to do with persecution or race baiting (I'll leave that to the democrats); it is a statement to the hypocrisy inherent to the left and our "government".

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 10:33 AM
The Mayor is a city employee. But that wasn't my point. I was just responding to the other poster's comment by itself regarding getting a reprimand for a similar act.

You were implying the important distinction was religion, not public speech by a state employee.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 10:35 AM
You were implying the important distinction was religion, not public speech by a state employee.

Religion is the important variable in this instance. Burn a Bible, many leftist circles cheer. Burn a Koran, you're fired.

Bob Dole
09-15-2010, 10:37 AM
:facepalm:

You mean his non-violent exercising of his right to free speech?

Didn't you get the memo? That book has the same value as human life.

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 11:27 AM
Religion is the important variable in this instance. Burn a Bible, many leftist circles cheer. Burn a Koran, you're fired.

Give me one example of a public employee burning a bible and not being disciplined.

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 11:28 AM
You were implying the important distinction was religion, not public speech by a state employee.

Don't try to say what someone's intentions were. You can't read minds. I made the state employee argument earlier in the thread.

petegz28
09-15-2010, 11:46 AM
I don't see how his 1st amendment right was violated???

He's not going to jail.

Are people who post stupid shit about their boss or job on Facebook being violated as well?

FTR, I am not saying his 1st was violated. I am saying that given the context of it all, a non-violent display of his 1st amendment rights lead to him being fired. I think it can send the message that overall it is ok for muslims to build a mosque at ground-zero without a care of who they are offending as they do it. But this guy burns a few pages out of a Koran and he gets fired.

And I have never said the NJ Transit was acting illegally. Contrary to what Jensen wants to keep spinning.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 11:50 AM
Give me one example of a public employee burning a bible and not being disciplined.

How about an executive order to destroy stacks of them? http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-39421920090505

Try google or bing for your next inquiry.

petegz28
09-15-2010, 11:53 AM
How about an executive order to destroy stacks of them? http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-39421920090505

Try google or bing for your next inquiry.

Great find. They couldn't have simply donated them to a church or bookstore or anything. They had to destroy them.

petegz28
09-15-2010, 11:56 AM
update to the OP:


If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at_nj_transit.html#ixzz0zcctFnU9

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 12:00 PM
update to the OP:

Good to hear. Props to the ACLU if they back him up.

Pitt Gorilla
09-15-2010, 12:21 PM
I GUARANTEE if he had done the same with a King James Bible he would not have been reprimanded.You are essentially suggesting a 100% probability which I think even you would recognize as ridiculous.

alpha_omega
09-15-2010, 12:39 PM
Should have burned a Bible; he would have gotten a raise, bonus, and a promotion.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 12:57 PM
You are essentially suggesting a 100% probability which I think even you would recognize as ridiculous.

What I find ridiculous is the double-standard. Not that I feel "persecuted"; as an agnostic, I'm as impartial as you can get (yes, atheism IS a dogma and therefore classified as a religion IMO).

The separation of church and state has come to mean separation of Christianity and state; anything else goes. Demeaning Christianity = "art"; demeaning anything else (with the exception of Scientology) = taboo.

It's either ALL fair game, or all taboo. Some animals are NOT more equal than others.

orange
09-15-2010, 01:01 PM
3. What has the U.S. Supreme Court said about the First Amendment rights of public employees?

The Supreme Court has ruled that public employee speech involving matters of public concern constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized that public employees could sue for retaliation in 1968. In the case Pickering v. Board of Education, the Court set out the balancing test that remains controlling law today:

"the interests of the [employee] as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern" must be balanced against "the interest of the State as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

In other words, if you bring a claim against your employer under the First Amendment, you must convince the court that your interest in speaking openly on a matter of public concern outweighs the government's interest in having an efficient workplace.

This is an important right, because, as the Supreme Court has conceded, government employees are often in the best position to learn the deficiencies in the government agencies for which they work. It is important to allow government employees to make these deficiencies open to the community, so the public can debate how to improve them.

back to top
4. What must I prove to win a First Amendment retaliation case?

To win a retaliation case under the First Amendment, a court must find that:



the plaintiff was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity;

the defendant's adverse action caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury that would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and

the adverse action was motivated at least in part as a response to the exercise of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

For a public employee claiming retaliation by the employer, the court must also find that:



the employee's speech was a matter of 'public concern'; and

the interest of the employee as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern, outweighs the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.


back to top
5. What are matters of "public concern"?

Since the First Amendment is a constitutional principle, the doctrines that interpret it come from a series of court cases, rather than laws that have been passed. The courts add to the list of what subjects are of "public concern" only when a particular case requires them to decide on a new issue. We can look to some of those cases to discern what is, and is not, of "public concern."

The Supreme Court has found the following speech to be of public concern:



the allocation of school funds, and the administration's methods of informing, or not informing, the taxpayers of the real reasons why additional tax revenues were being sought for schools,

testifying before a state legislature,

a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance that the school principal had circulated to various teachers at a public school,

statements concerning a School District's allegedly racially discriminatory policies,

where speech criticizes government inefficiency and waste, not as an aggrieved employee, but as a concerned citizen,

staff psychologist criticizing a hospital for unnecessary psychotropic drugs, failing to provide safe working conditions, and inadequately supervising a penal code patient,

the manner in which police and fire fighters performed upon a particular occasion,

adequacy of funding for emergency services, environmental violations at wastewater treatment plant,

an elementary school teacher who claimed she was fired for inviting actor Woody Harrelson to come speak to her class about the environmental benefits of hemp.


back to top
6. What are not generally considered matters of "public concern?"

The Supreme Court has ruled that when employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should not have to suffer too much interference with managing their offices.

Your employer may dismiss you for speech that is not considered of public concern, such as employee grievances concerning internal office policy, such as a petition circulated by an Assistant District Attorney to other Assistant District Attorneys about the office's transfer policy, office morale, and whether a grievance committee was needed. However, a person dismissed for such activity would have the same First Amendment protections a non-employee would have in a libel or other case.

back to top
7. How can I tell the difference between matters of "public concern" and those which are not?

The result of various Supreme Court cases is that some speech is more clearly of "public concern" than others. Matters of elections, pending legislation, corruption, race discrimination, public health and safety are in the zone of public concern. Matters of internal employment policy that do not touch on these public concerns are normally unprotected.

Other matters may or may not be of "public concern," depending on the scope of media attention, controversy, or, on the other hand, how deeply they disrupt the function of the public office. Sometimes we just cannot tell what a court will do with a case raising a new area or an issue that raises strong concerns about both public policy and internal disruption. As the Supreme Court stated in Connick v. Myers:

"Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record."

back to top
8. What is the balancing test courts use to decide these cases?

Once a plaintiff states a claim for unlawful retaliation, a court must decide if

"the interest of the employee as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern, outweighs the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

Courts have to make this decision after weighing the facts of each particular case. Some balancing factors for a court to consider include whether:



the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers,

the statement has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, and

whether the speech in question interferes with the normal operation of the employer's business.


The extent of the government's burden to show disruption depends on the nature of the employee's expression. The more important the First Amendment interest, the more disruption the government has to show. A speaker's "personal stake" in a controversy does not prevent speech on the issue from involving a matter of public concern.

back to top
9. Aren't these factors vague or subjective?

Yes, these factors may seem vague or subjective. For example, even though the education of special needs students is clearly a matter of public concern, a principal may lawfully discharge teachers for disobeying an order to quit talking about this subject. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the speech "resulted in school factions and disharmony among their co-workers and negatively impacted [the principal's] interest in efficiently administering the middle school." Fales v. Garst.

Compare this result to Belyeu v. Coosa County Bd. of Education, where the Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld the rights of a teacher's aide who called for a commemoration of Black History Month in a speech to a PTA meeting. Immediately after the meeting, the principal told her he wished she had raised this issue privately rather than publicly. A lower court determined that the speech clearly touched on a matter of public concern, but that the school system's interest in avoiding racial tensions outweighed the aide's right to free speech. On appeal, however, the Court reversed, writing that the aide's "remarks did not disrupt the School System's function by enhancing racial division, nor, based on the nature or context of her remarks, was her speech likely to do so."

http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliationpublic?agree=yes#8

orange
09-15-2010, 01:03 PM
EMPLOYER’S PREROGATIVE: CONTROL DISRUPTION, PROMOTE EFFICIENCY

The second prong of the Pickering-Connick test requires the courts to balance the employee’s right to free speech with the employer’s interest in an efficient, disruption-free workplace.

Sometimes courts will defer to employers’ judgments about the potential disruptiveness of employee speech. For example, one federal appeals court ruled in 1998 that Illinois prison officials could terminate a corrections officer for his membership in the Ku Klux Klan and his expression of a white-supremacist viewpoint in the prison.57 The parties agreed that the officer’s association with the Klan and advocacy of white supremacy touched on matters of public concern and thereby implicated the First Amendment. But while the officer argued that the prison could not discipline him for off-duty activities, the prison countered that his conduct was undermining discipline and creating danger in the workplace.

The federal appeals court wrote that the balance “weighs heavily” in favor of the prison, which has important interests in maintaining safety and avoiding racial violence. The appeals court also noted that the officer would himself be a “target for racially motivated violence” in a setting where the inmate population was 60% African-American or Hispanic.58 The appeals court reasoned that the plaintiff’s position as a sergeant weighed against him as well, because supervisory and managerial employees set examples for subordinate employees and their views are more likely to be considered reflective of the employer’s views.

Similarly, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2000 that the state’s Department of Social Services could fire an investigator for telling a racist joke at a dinner honoring retiring members of a city council.59 The court noted that “a public employee has a strong interest in speaking her mind free from government sanction.” However, the court reasoned that in this instance the employee’s racist speech had the “clear potential” to undermine the DSS’s relations with its clients and the community.60

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.PDF

LOCOChief
09-15-2010, 01:08 PM
I GUARANTEE if he had done the same with a King James Bible he would not have been reprimanded.

THIS

alpha_omega
09-15-2010, 01:23 PM
How about a summary there Orange? Cliff's Notes?

orange
09-15-2010, 01:27 PM
He wouldn't have been fired for burning the Flag or the Bible, by golly! :cuss:



You're sure about that, are you?

Kentucky Teacher Reassigned After Burning Flags During Civics Lesson
Tuesday, August 22, 2006


LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A middle school teacher in Louisville has been removed from the classroom after burning two American flags in class as part of a civics lesson.

Dan Holden, a seventh-grade social studies teacher at Stuart Middle School, burned two flags Friday as part of a lesson on freedom of speech, said Jefferson County schools spokeswoman Lauren Roberts said.

The students were asked to write an opinion paper on the flag burning, Roberts said.

Holden, a teacher in the school district since 1979, has been reassigned to non-instructional duties while the incident is under investigation.

Roberts said the flag burning did not appear to be politically motivated, based on an interview with Holden.

The district also alerted city fire officials.

"Certainly we're concerned about the safety aspect," Roberts said, along with "the judgment of using that type of demonstration in a class."

Pat Summers, whose daughter was in Holden's class, told The Courier-Journal of Louisville that more than 20 parents showed up at the school Monday, upset over the incident. Click here to read the Courier-Journal story.

"She said, 'Our teacher burned a flag.' I'm like, 'What?"' Summers said.

Brent McKim, president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said Holden has "been teaching for many years, and has by all accounts a good teaching record. It was not a political statement and was meant to illustrate a controversial issue. To fire someone because of that would be inappropriate," he said. "It wasn't like he was taking one side or another."

An attempt to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning failed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Beth Wilson, director of Kentucky's American Civil Liberties Union, said the school district is allowed to decide what's instructionally appropriate.

But "if a school is masking their objections to flag burning under the guise of safety, it raises questions about freedom of speech and academic freedom," she said. She said the ACLU would monitor the case but is not involved at this point.

Stuart sixth-grader Kelsey Adwell, 11, said students were abuzz about the incident on Monday.

"They just can't believe that a teacher would do that — burn two American flags in front of the class," she said. "A teacher shouldn't do that, even though it was an example."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209750,00.html

orange
09-15-2010, 01:30 PM
How about a summary there Orange? Cliff's Notes?

He probably loses his case.

He definitely meets the Public Concern test, but he will lose the balancing test - "Once a plaintiff states a claim for unlawful retaliation, a court must decide if "the interest of the employee as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern, outweighs the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.""


The second post (#99) there is almost exactly to the point.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I would never claim to know what a court might do.

alpha_omega
09-15-2010, 01:32 PM
He probably loses his case.

He definitely meets the Public Concern test, but he will lose the "balancing test."

The second post (#99) there is almost exactly to the point.

Thanks...i just don't have the time to read all that right now. I will come back later give it a thorough read.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 02:05 PM
You're sure about that, are you?

You didn't even read your own post.

1. The teacher was not fired; the teacher was reassigned pending investigation.

2. The act took place on school grounds, yes?

Weak correlation, but thanks for trying... and also thanks for the condescending race-bating attitude. It is expected from libbies like you.... it's why I can't stand liberals.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2010, 02:07 PM
I don't see how his 1st amendment right was violated???

He's not going to jail.

Are people who post stupid shit about their boss or job on Facebook being violated as well?

Depends...is their boss the Government or private business? If it's Government then they are punishing him wihtout due process and violating his first amendment rights. It's political speech and it's protected.

orange
09-15-2010, 02:11 PM
The teacher was not fired; the teacher was reassigned pending investigation.

He was REMOVED FROM TEACHING. Quibble all you want.

..and also thanks for the condescending race-bating attitude. It is expected from libbies like you.... it's why I can't stand liberals.

Race-baiting? Like THIS?

The thing that pisses me off about this is that if he was anything but white, he wouldn't even get a reprimand.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=7007360&postcount=77

I'm sure you'll be chastising frazod ... any moment now

dirk digler
09-15-2010, 02:15 PM
update to the OP:

Ok so he did this while on duty? What a dumbass and he should be fired for being stupid.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 02:20 PM
He was REMOVED FROM TEACHING.

Race-baiting? Like THIS?

LOL, again, I'll take reading comprehension for $200, Alex.

The teacher was not fired. Read it. Suspended from teaching, with pay, pending investigation != (does not equal) firing. DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS OR NOT.

Holden, a teacher in the school district since 1979, has been reassigned to non-instructional duties while the incident is under investigation.

Second, the teacher set fire to objects in front of the class. That violates safety code... you don't intentionally start fires in a public school; you certainly don't do so without expected repercussions.

Teacher does the same thing on their own time, no problem. If they are subsequently fired, without investigation (notice the incident you linked includes that little detail? Notice the scenario to which you are comparing it does not?), then it's on par. Boo-hooing and opining aside.

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 02:23 PM
Ok so he did this while on duty? What a dumbass and he should be fired for being stupid.

It said he did it off-duty

dirk digler
09-15-2010, 02:25 PM
It said he did it off-duty

Ok thanks.

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 02:44 PM
How about an executive order to destroy stacks of them? http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-39421920090505

Try google or bing for your next inquiry.

So the military took away bibles to prevent proselytizing, which is against military protocol. And the problem is?

HC_Chief
09-15-2010, 02:44 PM
Ok thanks.

Actually, it did not say that... the ACLU rep said "...if he was off-duty...". I tried to edit but my connection to CP has been complete crap today.

HUGE difference! If he was on duty when he did it then all bets are off. When on-duty he is a representative of his employer, no matter whom employs him. I have no problem with him being fired for burning the Koran while on duty.

Garcia Bronco
09-15-2010, 03:21 PM
Actually, it did not say that... the ACLU rep said "...if he was off-duty...". I tried to edit but my connection to CP has been complete crap today.

HUGE difference! If he was on duty when he did it then all bets are off. When on-duty he is a representative of his employer, no matter whom employs him. I have no problem with him being fired for burning the Koran while on duty.

He was not working

jettio
09-15-2010, 03:36 PM
My first impression is that there is something wrong about dismissing him from his public employee job for a stunt that he performed off the clock and that is arguably expressing a free speech protected dumbazz point of view.

It is a shame that poor souls like him get worked up over stupid sh*t so much that they go and do stupid sh*t.

Pants
09-15-2010, 03:39 PM
Political correctness run amuck. Might as well just axe the 1st amendment.

The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with employers and employees.

orange
09-15-2010, 03:52 PM
update to the OP:

If Fenton was fired for burning the Koran while off-duty, his First Amendment rights probably were violated, Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/14/2010-09-14_koran_burner_derek_fenton_fired_from_his_job_at_nj_transit.html#ixzz0zcctFnU9

I'm not sure Mr. Fenton is reassured by that.

Another case that hits very close:

Locurto v. Giuliani (Challenging dismissal of NYC employees for racially offensive expression)
S.D.N.Y., Index No. 98 Civ. 6495 (JES), U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Cir., No. 00-7628 (direct)

This case arose over the dismissal of three New York City civil service employees due to a racially offensive form of expression.

In this case, the NYCLU represented a former NYPD officer who was fired after participating off-duty in a racially offensive float that was part of a 1998 Labor Day Parade in Broad Channel, Queens. The trial drew considerable attention not only because of the controversy surrounding the float but also because Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a defendant and testified at the trial.

In June 2003, Southern District Judge John Sprizzo found that the dismissal of Locurto and two firefighters involved in the float violated the First Amendment. In particular, Judge Sprizzo found that Mr. Giuliani directed the dismissals both because of his personal objection to the content of the float and also as a political reaction to the heavy criticism he was receiving for his handling of the Million Youth March, which had taken place just two days before the Broad Channel parade.

Because the court had directed the bifurcation of liability and remedy issues, the parties only then began addressing the question of remedy. While preserving its right to appeal, the city then agreed that, under Judge Sprizzo’s liability ruling, Mr. Locurto was entitled to be reinstated and was entitled to backpay for salary and benefits he lost as a result of his dismissal. Judge Sprizzo entered a remedy order in November 2004, and the city proceeded with its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals.

On April 27, 2006, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Sprizzo’s ruling. The Second Circuit determined that the actions of the defendants were reasonable, and outweighed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to participate in the parade.

Attorneys involved in this case include Chris Dunn (he represented Locurto :doh!:).

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1134
http://vlex.com/vid/locurto-v-giuliani-20500566

petegz28
09-15-2010, 03:52 PM
So the military took away bibles to prevent proselytizing, which is against military protocol. And the problem is?

No, they didn't just take them away. They destroyed them. Get the picture yet?

petegz28
09-15-2010, 03:53 PM
The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with employers and employees.

I disagree to a point. If he was at work I could understand. What he did was off-duty, away from work and in no way associated his employer with his actions.

Chief Henry
09-15-2010, 03:57 PM
The guy should have just called his burning of the Quran "art"...

petegz28
09-15-2010, 04:09 PM
The guy should have just called his burning of the Quran "art"...

Exactly!!!

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 04:18 PM
No, they didn't just take them away. They destroyed them. Get the picture yet?

Distinction without a difference.

petegz28
09-15-2010, 04:23 PM
Distinction without a difference.

Bullshit. The only reason you can claim there is no difference is because a bunch of Christians didn't come out threatening Jihad over it.

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 05:05 PM
Bullshit. The only reason you can claim there is no difference is because a bunch of Christians didn't come out threatening Jihad over it.

When the military discharges someone over a bible, get back with me.

petegz28
09-15-2010, 05:08 PM
When the military discharges someone over a bible, get back with me.

Why? Your head will still be in the sand.

VAChief
09-15-2010, 05:20 PM
I just wouldn't. Besides he was acting like those that are called radical Islamacists.

DING, DING, DING! He shouldn't have been fired, chastised for being being an idiot. Sure.

VAChief
09-15-2010, 05:27 PM
I don't understand the thinking of how acting purposefully disrespectful of others promotes respect for your own beliefs. Sure he has the right, but I'm not sure what the act is supposed to represent. Nothing positive that I can see.

Jenson71
09-15-2010, 06:01 PM
And I have never said the NJ Transit was acting illegally. Contrary to what Jensen wants to keep spinning.

You have been arguing that he should not be fired because of the First Amendment. I'm saying that the First Amendment protects him from not being in prison, but that it doesn't mean he is protected in keeping his job. What am I spinning?

Have you read what orange has posted?

go bowe
09-15-2010, 06:07 PM
White Christian persecution fever, catch it!!!hah! LMAO LMAO LMAO




btw, where is seaward?

Pitt Gorilla
09-15-2010, 06:16 PM
I disagree to a point. If he was at work I could understand. What he did was off-duty, away from work and in no way associated his employer with his actions.Teachers are often restricted to what they can do "away from work" and some have been fired for partaking in legal activities on their own time (due to vague clauses in their contracts). This seems a like a similar situation.

StcChief
09-15-2010, 06:32 PM
NJ Governor where are you to give the guy his job back. grow a pair.

Jenson71
09-15-2010, 06:36 PM
NJ Governor where are you to give the guy his job back. grow a pair.

Does Christie support the NJ Transit's decision?

orange
09-15-2010, 06:43 PM
The agency says in a statement Derek Fenton violated its code of ethics.

A spokesman for Republican Gov. Chris Christie says the governor supports the action taken.

No one answered the door at Fenton's home

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100915/UPDATES01/100915105/1007/NEWS04/NJ+train+conductor+fired+after+burning+Quran+in+NY+

BucEyedPea
09-15-2010, 07:09 PM
A spokesman for Republican Gov. Chris Christie says the governor supports the action taken.

I'm liking that guy more and more. I wonder what his FP views are?

Cave Johnson
09-15-2010, 07:25 PM
hah! LMAO LMAO LMAO




btw, where is seaward?

Nowhere. It's the Bluth's boat on AD.

ClevelandBronco
09-15-2010, 07:30 PM
The agency says in a statement Derek Fenton violated its code of ethics.

A spokesman for Republican Gov. Chris Christie says the governor supports the action taken.

No one answered the door at Fenton's home

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100915/UPDATES01/100915105/1007/NEWS04/NJ+train+conductor+fired+after+burning+Quran+in+NY+

I'd advise that Fenton better not be answering unexpected knocks on his door for a while.

Good to hear the governor is on the STFU side of the issue.

bkkcoh
09-16-2010, 07:37 AM
He wasn't prevented from doing what he did, so his rights weren't violated.

But there are repurcussions to one's actions.

Cave Johnson
09-16-2010, 08:43 AM
Why? Your head will still be in the sand.

I'm not pro-burning of any work of fiction/literature, btw.

munkey
09-16-2010, 05:22 PM
Religion - It will be the end of us all...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeSSwKffj9o?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Iowanian
09-16-2010, 06:16 PM
I guess I'll stay the course.

This guy had the right to do what he did, but his employer should have the right to have employees who represent the image they want to put out, and if an employee does something like this, that causes turmoil or danger at work...they have the right to can him.

Frankie
09-17-2010, 09:21 PM
I guess I'll stay the course.

This guy had the right to do what he did, but his employer should have the right to have employees who represent the image they want to put out, and if an employee does something like this, that causes turmoil or danger at work...they have the right to can him.

IF his employer were not Government (at any level). And if I'm right he worked for the City Transit or something. I think he did a very stupid thing. But the action of his employers were even more stupid, IMO.

alanm
09-18-2010, 02:45 AM
The thing that pisses me off about this is that if he was anything but white, he wouldn't even get a reprimand.Bingo.

Earthling
09-18-2010, 05:06 AM
I guess I'll stay the course.

This guy had the right to do what he did, but his employer should have the right to have employees who represent the image they want to put out, and if an employee does something like this, that causes turmoil or danger at work...they have the right to can him.

:clap::clap: Yep