50512
Post by: Jihadin
A union representing federal employees at Eglin Air Force base in Florida is demanding that two senior management officials be removed from their posts because they put decals on their personal trucks supporting Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
Alan Cooper, the executive vice president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, said one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates.
“The BUE (bargaining union employee) was clearly offended and disgusted that a senior management official would display the decal on their pod,” read an email Cooper wrote.
“We took offense,” Cooper told me in a telephone interview. “These two particular individuals have a great amount of influence over individuals who may be gay, who may be African-American – and we have a concern they should not be in a position to exert that influence when it comes to promotions.”
In an email that was sent to union members, Cooper said the Duck Dynasty decal may be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Phil Robertson has made disparaging remarks against a vast array of people, which created a firestorm in the media in the recent past,” Cooper wrote.
He was referring to comments Robertson made in GQ magazine last year about homosexuality and his personal observations about the pre-Civil Rights era. A&E briefly suspended Robertson from his popular reality television show. But the network reversed its decision after they were overwhelmed by supporters of the program. I write about how Robertson and his family were viciously attacked by the media and militant gay rights organizations in my new book, “God Less America.”
Cooper told me he wants the two civilian managers at the Air Force base removed from their positions.
“I don’t know how long these individuals harbored these views – could they have impacted employment opportunities for folks that have been disparaged by the likes of a Phil Robertson,” he said.
Regardless, he wants the Duck Dynasty fans dealt with, noting “it’s definitely 100 percent inappropriate for an organization that espouses a zero tolerance policy” to condone such activity.
“If it’s zero tolerance, it’s zero tolerance for everybody,” he said, referring to the military’s anti-discrimination policies.
I spoke with one of the individuals being targeted by the government union. He asked that I not disclose his name. He rejected the accusations that he was a racist or homophobe because he supports Duck Dynasty.
“My intent was not to offend anybody,” the individual told me. “My intent was to support the show and to show support for his Christian values.”
The individual told me he was especially upset after union workers took photographs of his truck and his license plate and emailed the images to other union members. That email was reportedly sent to hundreds and hundreds of personnel.
“I see the email that went out accusing me and my boss of being racist,” he said. “That couldn’t be farther from the truth.”
“I’m pro-family,” he said. “I’m pro-life. I don’t have a problem with anybody who doesn’t agree with me.”
He said he has absolutely no plans to remove the decal from his truck.
“I’m not taking it off,” he said. “If they want to make me retire early that’s what I’ll do. But I’m not backing down.”
The civilian worker told me it’s a First Amendment issue. He said there are plenty of vehicles on the military base that are plastered with all sorts of stickers.
“I disagree with 90 percent of what our Commander in Chief believes in, but I’m not asking anyone to take (an Obama decal) off their vehicle,” he said. “It’s a freedom of speech issue.”
And that’s exactly what the Air Force believes it is. They investigated the claims made by the union and determined that the two civilian workers were well within their rights to support Duck Dynasty.
“Brigadier General Dave Harris is not taking any action against the individual as the display of such a bumper sticker is considered legally protected speech under the First Amendment,” said Andy Bourland, director of public affairs at the military base.
Bourland also told me they looked into the incident involving the decals in the worker’s office. They also decided not to take action in that incident.
Eli Craft is a member of the union and he told me he is furious at how union leadership handled the incident.
“It was extremely, extremely upsetting,” he said. “The community we live in is a very faith-based community. For someone to say this individual was offensive and if you support him you can’t manage or lead a diverse work place – it blew my mind.”
Craft had nothing but praise for the two managers. He said they are long time veterans of the military and volunteer in the community.
“They are Christians – that’s how they live their lives,” he said.”
And around the Florida panhandle, Craft said there are plenty of Duck Dynasty fans.
“Heck yeah,” he said. “The Duck Dynasty folks represent a lot of the folks who hunt and fish and who are Christians in the panhandle. That family and that program represent a way of life we see here.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the government union wants to shut down free speech.
“Could you imagine if someone demanded someone take an Obama bumper sticker off because President Obama is intolerant to orthodox Christian views?” Perkins asked. “Where does this stop?”
He said their attack on the two Duck Dynasty fans is an example of the Left’s intimidation and intolerance.
“They do not want anyone to have a choice to express themselves in a way that counters their own viewpoint and that’s very dangerous to our republic,” Perkins said. “This goes back to the underlying emphasis and goal – not to debate the merits of whether someone is right or not. It’s to shut down the debate. End of story. No discussion.”
For now – the jobs of the two Duck Dynasty fans are safe. It’s unclear at this point what the union’s next step might be. But they should heed this warning. I’m going to be keeping my eye on the American Government Employees Union. And should they try to retaliate against these brave Americans, it’ll be on like Donkey Kong. And that’s a fact, Jack.
What irked really irked me off was
The individual told me he was especially upset after union workers took photographs of his truck and his license plate and emailed the images to other union members. That email was reportedly sent to hundreds and hundreds of personnel.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
"People who share racist and homophobic viewpoints with other racists and homophobes shocked that some people may be offended by them publicly showing support of this attitude"
Top article there. Interesting that you do not add your source 
12313
Post by: Ouze
 SilverMK2 wrote:"People who share racist and homophobic viewpoints with other racists and homophobes shocked that some people may be offended by them publicly showing support of this attitude"
Top article there. Interesting that you do not add your source
Todd Starnes wrote it for Fox News.
Jihadin often does not cite his articles, it's not a conspiracy or anything. It's probably going to hurt his grades when Yakface grades us on OT 101 at the end of the year.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
And is the union really a government union, or a union of people who happen to work for the government?
12313
Post by: Ouze
The latter, it's affiliated with the AFL-CIO.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
That was my assumption; given the quality of the article the title would be equally... rabble rousing.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Uhg, it's that whole thing again. I personally thought it was good that Phil didn't back down from what he believes in. I also think his views are completely ignorant and wrong, but at least he didn't back down, I'll give him that.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Personally, I think anyone who enjoys Duck Dynasty should just be fired (out of a cannon) anyway, but to openly admit to being homophobic and racist like this when you're in that position? Either FOX News screwed up again (easily possible) or these guys are giant feth-heads who should be fired (again, out of a cannon).
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
I found it interesting when one of the "victims" said “My intent was to support the show and to show support for his Christian values.”
The same "Christian" values that condemn homosexuality?
The same "Christian" values that devalue and degrade women?
The same "Christian" values that, if you believe the source material, place the world at 10,000 years old?
Yeah....I'm a Christian and I don't support *those* values what-so-ever.
"Love one another, as I have loved you."
Selflessly, without judgment, and without prejudice---that's the Christ-like values that I support.
91
Post by: Hordini
The Bible doesn't place the world at 10,000 years old.
18698
Post by: kronk
<--- Went to Louisiana Tech University, where Phil went.
<--- Thinks Duck Dynasty is a horrible show. It's neither funny, nor entertaining.
But I don't give 2 feths about people having bumper stickers in support or against them.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Questionable headline
Questionable explanation of what is going on
Questionable exchange of "Duck Dynasty Fan" for "supports specific person and his specific statements against a subgroup of people"
Questionable exchange of "fans" for "management with direct authority over people singled out in the statements of said person"
Questionable exchange of "Government union" for "union made up of workers that are employed by the government"
Nothing surprising about this thread or that article/..
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Firstly, I don't think a union of any type should have the "right" to fire or persecute anyone for a bumper sticker (unless of course, it's a bumper sticker that says "Feth unions")
Secondly, I do remember that particular GQ firestorm, and there was more made from it, because in part, the author of the article completely misquoted Robertson... It later came out that what he said wasn't "i hate gays" (as was basically published) it was, "I don't support the lifestyle, but God and the Bible call on us to love them regardless, and hope they come around"
thirdly, I've only seen 2 or 3 episodes of Duck Dynasty (it was the only thing even remotely interesting looking on TV that night... it was March Madness, and this guy dont watch basketball)... and of the 3 episodes, there was only ONE remotely funny thing in it... and that was Phil and Si going to the grandkids' schools for "Career day" where Phil gutted a duck for 8th graders, and Si told a bunch of 7 year olds (guessing) a crapload of his worst Vietnam stories 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
They should be fired. I dont want someone who watches Reality TV part of the govt.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Am I wrong in betting the two with bumper stickers aren't union guys. No conflict of interest there...
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:Secondly, I do remember that particular GQ firestorm, and there was more made from it, because in part, the author of the article completely misquoted Robertson... It later came out that what he said wasn't "i hate gays" (as was basically published) it was, "I don't support the lifestyle, but God and the Bible call on us to love them regardless, and hope they come around"
He was never quoted saying "I hate gays" nor was he misquoted in the GQ article. In fact, you can read the article yourself, the part about homosexuals is on the second page.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Secondly, I do remember that particular GQ firestorm, and there was more made from it, because in part, the author of the article completely misquoted Robertson... It later came out that what he said wasn't "i hate gays" (as was basically published) it was, "I don't support the lifestyle, but God and the Bible call on us to love them regardless, and hope they come around"
He was never quoted saying "I hate gays" nor was he misquoted in the GQ article. In fact, you can read the article yourself, the part about homosexuals is on the second page.
He also said it is as bad as bestiality.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Frazzled wrote:Am I wrong in betting the two with bumper stickers aren't union guys. No conflict of interest there...
They are management.
34390
Post by: whembly
 hotsauceman1 wrote: ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Secondly, I do remember that particular GQ firestorm, and there was more made from it, because in part, the author of the article completely misquoted Robertson... It later came out that what he said wasn't "i hate gays" (as was basically published) it was, "I don't support the lifestyle, but God and the Bible call on us to love them regardless, and hope they come around"
He was never quoted saying "I hate gays" nor was he misquoted in the GQ article. In fact, you can read the article yourself, the part about homosexuals is on the second page.
He also said it is as bad as bestiality.
*sigh*
This is what he said:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical…
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
As you read the whole article, these statements make it exceedingly clear he finds a great deal of this justification in the Bible.
He then goes to say (which people are missing in context):
Robertson offered a more tolerant statement to Fox411, saying he is a reformed sex-drugs-and-rock-‘n-roll guy who found Jesus and “would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.”
He is not saying he is in favor of any kind of disrespect or discrimination against gay people. He is just saying that he thinks it is a sin. He doesn’t like it. That’s all he has said.
I think it's also prudent that ya'll check this out:
Producer on Phil Robertson's Anti-Gay Comments: I Wanted to Speak Up
"I know Phil Robertson. I know his beliefs," Deirdre Gurney, executive producer of A&E's breakout hit, said during The Hollywood Reporter Reality Roundtable. "I know how he treats a crew that has several gay people on it.”
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson came under fire after making anti-gay remarks in December 2013, prompting A&E to temporarily suspend him. Less than a week later, A&E and the Robertson family jointly announced that Phil Robertson would remain on the series during its fifth season, with no impact on production. The immediate uproar over Robertson’s incendiary comments, made during an interview with GQ, surprised producers Gurney Productions.
"I don’t think anyone expected it to be that kind of a reaction and get that much attention, so no one was prepared with what this really meant, what to say," Duck Dynasty executive producer Deirdre Gurney said during The Hollywood Reporter Reality Roundtable. “We were out of it as the production company. When this happens with talent or the network, it’s really the network’s job [to handle it]. We make it for them, but it’s their show -- it’s their job to decide how they want to handle it and what they want to do. The hard thing with that was it happened over Christmas holiday."
Gurney stayed mum during the ordeal, and admitted that being quiet was a difficult task.
"I wanted to be able to speak and explain, but we couldn’t," she said. "We know our talent. I know Phil Robertson. I know his beliefs. I know how he treats a crew that has several gay people on it and people of different races and people from all different places."
Panelist Tim Gunn (Project Runway) then chimed in, asking Gurney, "Are you saying he didn’t make the comments?"
"He made them, but he doesn’t deny who he is. He has beliefs and stands by them. But that isn’t how he treats people -- it is what he thinks. I think there’s a separation between what he thinks and how he thinks people should be treated. I don’t think he was saying anything about how people should be treated," she said, claiming she hadn’t heard Robertson make comments like that before.
"How I felt was, 'I wish I could explain to people the person I know.' When someone makes a comment to the press and things are taken out of context or reporters are dealing with people who don’t have media training and aren’t used to this and they’re maybe, at times, in general cornered into saying something that someone thinks is salacious or wants to make a headline out of."
The Real World executive producer Jonathan Murray wasn’t keen on how the situation was handled, referring to the network's statement distancing itself from Duck Dynasty when it said the comments were "not views we hold."
"Unfortunately, the network didn’t play it out. They didn’t look down the road as to the wisest course of action," he said. "The worst thing you can do as a network is to say something and then take it back. Ultimately, the viewers decide whether they’re comfortable watching that person or not. It’s tricky when someone is couching their beliefs in their religious beliefs. Don’t people have a right to believe something in their religion? It’s a fine line."
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I have read the whole article. He compared it to bestiality.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:Am I wrong in betting the two with bumper stickers aren't union guys. No conflict of interest there...
They are management.
So nonunion. Yea thats not a factor in this little shindig at all... 
34390
Post by: whembly
He was talking about sin saucey. 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I know, And to say that doing what you love, and being with who you love is a sin, well then, Im going to sin
37231
Post by: d-usa
I always laugh at the whole "he said he would never disrespect anyone, so it wasn't disrespectful" argument.
If you say "I would never be disrespectful" and then you say something disrespectful, then you are being disrespectful.
It's the same as this:
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:I always laugh at the whole "he said he would never disrespect anyone, so it wasn't disrespectful" argument.
If you say "I would never be disrespectful" and then you say something disrespectful, then you are being disrespectful.
Just like I found how Obama blatantly lied to me and I find that disrespectful... you, however didn't mind.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:I always laugh at the whole "he said he would never disrespect anyone, so it wasn't disrespectful" argument. If you say "I would never be disrespectful" and then you say something disrespectful, then you are being disrespectful.
That picture makes zero sense. How about this: "Whembly, I'm not saying you are a troll, but you are a troll. " Did I call you a troll or not? Saying "I'm not X" and then doing X means that you just did X. If I say "I'm not saying you are a troll" and then I call you a troll, then I just called you a troll. If you say you are not racist, but then you say something racist. Then you said something racist. If you say you are not disrespecting, but then you disrespect, then you are disrespectful.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:I always laugh at the whole "he said he would never disrespect anyone, so it wasn't disrespectful" argument.
If you say "I would never be disrespectful" and then you say something disrespectful, then you are being disrespectful.
That picture makes zero sense.
How about this:
"Whembly, I'm not saying you are a troll, but you are a troll. "
Did I call you a troll or not?
Only if I cared if you called me a troll. (I don't)
Just like GLAAD having issues with Phil for saying homosexuality is a sin. GLAAD obviously cared what Phil Robertson said.
*shrug*
Call Phil out if you want... I don't really care. If anything, I'd be more in your camp.
But we have to be careful about advocating punishment for what people believes in...
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:I always laugh at the whole "he said he would never disrespect anyone, so it wasn't disrespectful" argument.
If you say "I would never be disrespectful" and then you say something disrespectful, then you are being disrespectful.
That picture makes zero sense.
How about this:
"Whembly, I'm not saying you are a troll, but you are a troll. "
Did I call you a troll or not?
Only if I cared if you called me a troll. (I don't).
So facts are only facts if you care about them?
d: Whembly, you are a troll.
w: You didn't really call me a troll because I don't care if you called me one.
That really explains your posts.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
I'm not quite sure anybody here is really opting for a punishment. Hell, I disagree with his opinion entirely but I don't even want to remove the show from television because of that. No, I want to remove it because it's reality television and all reality television must be destroyed. Joking aside, just some ridiculous union that is used by Fox to hopefully stir up some drama based on a group of people that are going too far.
14765
Post by: paulson games
 kronk wrote:<--- Went to Louisiana Tech University, where Phil went.
<--- Thinks Duck Dynasty is a horrible show. It's neither funny, nor entertaining.
But I don't give 2 feths about people having bumper stickers in support or against them.
Did you major in Banjo? Is it true that missing teeth are a graduation requirement?
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:I always laugh at the whole "he said he would never disrespect anyone, so it wasn't disrespectful" argument.
If you say "I would never be disrespectful" and then you say something disrespectful, then you are being disrespectful.
That picture makes zero sense.
How about this:
"Whembly, I'm not saying you are a troll, but you are a troll. "
Did I call you a troll or not?
Only if I cared if you called me a troll. (I don't).
So facts are only facts if you care about them?
d: Whembly, you are a troll.
w: You didn't really call me a troll because I don't care if you called me one.
That really explains your posts.
O.o
Wow... you're doing a herculean thought policing here dude.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them. So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
And that doesn't change the fact that people are pissed that a person that is in charge over black and gay people has a sticker on his car (that he drives to work and that the people he manages will see) that says "I support Phil when he says that gays are as bad as bestiality and that blacks were better before they got civil rights".
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens...
I heard about the Duck Dynasty thing being homophobic but didn't realise there was racism involved... how so?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
 Medium of Death wrote:I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens...
I heard about the Duck Dynasty thing being homophobic but didn't realise there was racism involved... how so?
I think this is the quote:
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Medium of Death wrote:I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens...
I heard about the Duck Dynasty thing being homophobic but didn't realise there was racism involved... how so?
He claimed they where better of before the civil riights, before they became welfare queens.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Ah, that sounds familiar but I think I'm thinking of that old crazy farmer guy that had a thing with the BLM(?) who said something similar.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
Pssssht it's not a meme that's organization 101
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
So you want people to be accepting of of intolerance?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
 Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
So you want people to be accepting of of intolerance?
It's a trap. You are activating "By being intolerant of intolerance you are being intolerant and shouldn't as it makes you hypocritical as you demand tolerance" trap card. whembly you insane genius! Jokes aside I couldn't help but tease at that little open hole of "very likely" predictability. To be frank, I don't like his point but I'd prefer not to fire somebody because of that. I just won't buy their stuff (then again I never did ha ha ha)
34390
Post by: whembly
Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
So you want people to be accepting of of intolerance?
Say your piece. Put it out there in the "Area of Ideas" and hash it out that way. Like adults ya know. 
But, it's a dangerous mindset to try changing other people's ideas economically.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
Really zero fething point if you can't even keep up with an argument you yourself made in the last 30 minutes.
Thanks for making it clear that you don't see the difference between the sentences.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
Really zero fething point if you can't even keep up with an argument you yourself made in the last 30 minutes.
The Facts are, group A was offended and group B was not.
These are all opinions, not fething scientific results.
Thanks for making it clear that you don't see the difference between the sentences.
Thanks for making it clear that you give a feth.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
Really zero fething point if you can't even keep up with an argument you yourself made in the last 30 minutes.
The Facts are, group A was offended and group B was not.
These are all opinions, not fething scientific results.
Here it is again, one more time.
If I say "I'm not saying you are a troll, but you are a troll", then I just called you a troll. That is a simple statement of fact. No matter what the "I'm not..." says, I just typed in black and white that I think you are a troll.
Your reply to the fact that I just called you a troll in that statement: "that never really happened, because I don't care about that".
Thanks for making it clear that you don't see the difference between the sentences.
Thanks for making it clear that you give a feth.
It's a minute and distinct difference between "It doesn't matter two consenting adults do" and "it does matter when somebody marginalizes other people".
Two guys fething don't tell you that what you are doing is wrong. A guy telling you that what you are doing is wrong is a guy telling you that what you are doing is wrong.
It's such a barely noticeable difference it is pretty easy to see how people can miss that... Automatically Appended Next Post: And again:
The people that the manager oversees clearly thought that what he said was offensive and marginalizes them. And a manager supporting those statements that marginalize them while also having authority over them makes them uncomfortable.
It's not rocket science.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
How did he marginalize other people?
He just stated his opinion and beliefs. Everyone is entitled to those. Saying he can't say them is infringing on the right to free speech.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
So you want people to be accepting of of intolerance?
I want someone to not have to risk being fired for carrying a belief that goes against the grain. "You can have your first amendment rights as long as you don't say anything bad"
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
So you want people to be accepting of of intolerance?
I want someone to not have to risk being fired for carrying a belief that goes against the grain. "You can have your first amendment rights as long as you don't say anything bad"
But should we be accepting of, racists, sexists, homophones, nazis, ect.?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Those people have as much a right to say what they believe as you do.
And what Patterson said is hardly Homophobic.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
 Grey Templar wrote:Those people have as much a right to say what they believe as you do.
And what Patterson said is hardly Homophobic.
Meh homophobic is so brandied it really is hard to put down what it means. You could say it is because he equates it to bestiality. Then again, why bother? It's a show about a bunch of people that call themself white trash that live in Louisiana. What else did you expect?
Add to that, people that like the show often have similar feelings but not all do. Some just think it's funny (as much as I don't understand the humor of reality television) and just watch it. That and every single one being fired is bloody extreme. The only person that has the rights to fire Phil would be the company that hires them and only if they feel like the costs of keeping the show on are outweighed by the negative drawbacks/backlash.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 paulson games wrote: kronk wrote:<--- Went to Louisiana Tech University, where Phil went.
<--- Thinks Duck Dynasty is a horrible show. It's neither funny, nor entertaining.
But I don't give 2 feths about people having bumper stickers in support or against them.
Did you major in Banjo? Is it true that missing teeth are a graduation requirement?
"Moon pies and RC Cola. We're not real smart, but we have a good time."
-some Louisiana native.
34390
Post by: whembly
@d-usa and @thread...
Honestly answer me this question: When did we, as a society, get so vindictive towards others that holds the "non-favored opinions"?
It's one thing to have a discussion... but, it's totally different when someone goes after you livelihood.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I was under the understanding that Freedom of Speech meant the Government wouldn't try to like, jail or punish you for what you say.
Not being fired from your job by higher ups and stuff.
34390
Post by: whembly
 MrDwhitey wrote:I was under the understanding that Freedom of Speech meant the Government wouldn't try to like, jail or punish you for what you say.
Not being fired from your job by higher ups and stuff.
That wasn't my question... unless you missed it.
But, yeah... you're right.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
whembly wrote:@d-usa and @thread...
Honestly answer me this question: When did we, as a society, get so vindictive towards others that holds the "non-favored opinions"?
It's one thing to have a discussion... but, it's totally different when someone goes after you livelihood.
Since the beginning of time? I think that is a rather accurate description. You gay? Well best keep it a secret lest you get murdered, barred from jobs, etc. You are black? Can't be here.
We all are vindictive to "non-favored opinions" and humanity always has been. Speaking your opinion has always had that trap. You have the right to speak your mind. And the company that leads you has the right to promptly blow you off whether you agree with it or not.
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote:@d-usa and @thread...
Honestly answer me this question: When did we, as a society, get so vindictive towards others that holds the "non-favored opinions"?
I don't care if you think blacks were better off before civil rights or that gays are as bad as sheepfethers.
But if my manager makes it clear that he supports those statements and promotes that viewpoint at his job, while also managing blacks and gays, then there is an issue.
It's one thing to have a discussion... but, it's totally different when someone goes after you livelihood.
Did somebody take his Duck Commander business away?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Yeah, they don't need the TV show. Its really just a hobby for them.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote: whembly wrote:@d-usa and @thread...
Honestly answer me this question: When did we, as a society, get so vindictive towards others that holds the "non-favored opinions"?
I don't care if you think blacks were better off before civil rights or that gays are as bad as sheepfethers.
But if my manager makes it clear that he supports those statements and promotes that viewpoint at his job, while also managing blacks and gays, then there is an issue.
D... here's the first paragraph of this OP story:
A union representing federal employees at Eglin Air Force base in Florida is demanding that two senior management officials be removed from their posts because they put decals on their personal trucks supporting Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
Stickers...
On...
Personal...
Trucks...
Nothing there stated that these reps promoted "that viewpoint".
It's one thing to have a discussion... but, it's totally different when someone goes after you livelihood.
Did somebody take his Duck Commander business away?
You're deflecting.
Why is it okay to go after someone from holding the "non-favored viewpoints"??
18698
Post by: kronk
whembly wrote:@d-usa and @thread...
Honestly answer me this question: When did we, as a society, get so vindictive towards others that holds the "non-favored opinions"?
January 16, 1988
 Automatically Appended Next Post: paulson games wrote: kronk wrote:<--- Went to Louisiana Tech University, where Phil went.
<--- Thinks Duck Dynasty is a horrible show. It's neither funny, nor entertaining.
But I don't give 2 feths about people having bumper stickers in support or against them.
Did you major in Banjo? Is it true that missing teeth are a graduation requirement?
You have to be able to sing either "You are my Sunshine" by Louisiana Governor Jimmie Davis or "Great Balls of Fire" by Louisiana Native Jerry Lee Lewis from beginning to end.
Alternatively, you have to be able to drink 1 ounce of this:
And not that imitation Louisiana Hot Sauce bs.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Saying people can't say they are offended by the idiocy is infringing on theirs.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Ahtman wrote:
Saying people can't say they are offended by the idiocy is infringing on theirs.
Nobody said they can't be offended.
We're saying you can't discriminate based on what someone says with their right to free speech.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ugh. Some you of you all seem quite capable calling me racist for I do not some of the actions Obama has taking. I watch at time s Duck Dynasty for some of the stupid things they do, like blowing up a beaver damn on the Judge property. Some of their discussion is off the wall on work ethics. I was "force" to attend Christian services so espouse some views of the Christian faith. Step mom did not like me being Buddhist but the ole "God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit HATES same sex couples". Far as I know. God forgives and quite a lot of same sex couples are *GASP* Christian
-I have OIF and OEF sticker on my car but to some I show I support war 110%
-I do not have a Obama/Biden sticker on my POV and work for the government but I must be a complete racist since I do not have that sticker.
-I am known that I do not like Obama, Holder, Jesse Jackson, at times Rangel
-I like West (at times), Colin Powell, Condeezza Rice, and Goody Jr. so I guess I discriminate against certain blacks
-I have a fake grenade on my desk with a tag on the pin that has "1" stamped on it and plate under it says "Complaint Department. Take Number" so I guess I'm telling everyone I am violent.
-In process of my jobs I do not call out names but I identify class of individuals by numbers assigned so i guess I am inhumane towards them.
-I do know that working for the Government you are not reprimanded for whatever you do with your personnel property.
Some mighty tall soup boxes in here
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Co'tor Shas wrote: Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly wrote: d-usa wrote:Look, we already established that you don't think fact are really facts if you don't care about them.
How do you figure?
So I'm pretty sure that there is zero reason to even point out to you that the first sentence in that picture has absolutely nothing to do with the second picture.
For an organization who demands tolerance, are EXTREMELY intolerant of folks different opinions. That's the meme.
So you want people to be accepting of of intolerance?
I want someone to not have to risk being fired for carrying a belief that goes against the grain. "You can have your first amendment rights as long as you don't say anything bad"
But should we be accepting of, racists, sexists, homophones, nazis, ect.?
Yes. We have laws that are in place to go after them if they take certain actions related to their beliefs, but someone just having that belief is no reason to take action against them.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
Grey Templar wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Saying people can't say they are offended by the idiocy is infringing on theirs.
Nobody said they can't be offended.
We're saying you can't discriminate based on what someone says with their right to free speech.
You have the right to free speech, not the right consequence-free speech
37231
Post by: d-usa
whembly wrote: d-usa wrote: whembly wrote:@d-usa and @thread...
Honestly answer me this question: When did we, as a society, get so vindictive towards others that holds the "non-favored opinions"?
I don't care if you think blacks were better off before civil rights or that gays are as bad as sheepfethers.
But if my manager makes it clear that he supports those statements and promotes that viewpoint at his job, while also managing blacks and gays, then there is an issue.
D... here's the first paragraph of this OP story:
A union representing federal employees at Eglin Air Force base in Florida is demanding that two senior management officials be removed from their posts because they put decals on their personal trucks supporting Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
Stickers...
On...
Personal...
Trucks...
Personal...
Trucks...
Parked...
On...
Government...
Property...
Where....
Their...
Employees...
Can...
See...
Them...
If I put a sticker that says "I hate veterans because they kill babies" next to my "Gays are as bad as sheep fethers" and park that car at my job at the veterans hospital then it really doesn't matter that it's my personal car.
If you would have read the second paragraph of the article you quoted then you would also realize that your statement is very incomplete.:
Alan Cooper, the executive vice president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, said one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates.
Nothing there stated that these reps promoted "that viewpoint".
Except "I support Phil".
It's one thing to have a discussion... but, it's totally different when someone goes after you livelihood.
Did somebody take his Duck Commander business away?
You're deflecting.
No I'm not. You said it's different when someone goes after your livelihood. Nobody went after his livelihood.
Why is it okay to go after someone from holding the "non-favored viewpoints"??
For the same reason it is okay for him to say that gays are as bad as sheep fethers and that gays were happier before civil rights.
For the same reason a television channel can decide what message they want to send.
For the same reason an audience can demand what message they want to receive from the stations they watch.
If he want to send the message "I think gays are sinners and as bad as sheep fethers" then that is fine. And if people decide to burn Duck Commander to the ground because of it then there is an issue.
But if he wants to send a message, and the television station he works for decides that they don't want to send that message, then the TV station has a right to decide what message they want to send.
If an employee has a problem with a manager saying "I support the guy who thinks you are as bad as a sheep fether" then he has a right to complain about that as well.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
d-usa wrote:
If an employee has a problem with a manager saying "I support the guy who thinks you are as bad as a sheep fether" then he has a right to complain about that as well.
Yes, and the only correct response from his manager is "So what?"
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote:
If an employee has a problem with a manager saying "I support the guy who thinks you are as bad as a sheep fether" then he has a right to complain about that as well.
Yes, and the only correct response from his manager is "So what?"
You are adorable.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Ahtman wrote: Saying people can't say they are offended by the idiocy is infringing on theirs.
Nobody said they can't be offended. We're saying you can't discriminate based on what someone says with their right to free speech.
You have the right to free speech, not the right consequence-free speech
That's not quite right either... not everything is a protected class (ie, race, gender, etc...). I remember there was a hot dental assisstance who was fired because she was, get this... too hot. Remember that there was a protest called “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day”??? Stemming from threats to that Norweigian writer (I think)??? That sparked a very visceral reaction to many of us here in the states. The reason for this was because we saw a threat to freedom of speech... not from the government, but from private individuals who said that if you dared to depict Mohammed, they would execute you. They even specifically threatened the creators of the show South Park because of this... remember that? It is a belief that freedom of expression and inquiry needs to be defended from all opponents, private or governmental, that the only thing that should influence the "marketplace of ideas" is the persuasiveness of the argument. That's why taking actions to purposely punish someone because they hold the "non-favor views" is so anathema to me...
68355
Post by: easysauce
Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote:
If an employee has a problem with a manager saying "I support the guy who thinks you are as bad as a sheep fether" then he has a right to complain about that as well.
Yes, and the only correct response from his manager is "So what?"
yup... both people in the article are welcome to their own opinion, thinking/saying/having stickers that say gay sex is awesome is just fine, thinking/saying/havinging stickers that say its gross is also just fine.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
I think the underlying issue is that by this person displaying (and offering) bumperstickers:
1) in his office
2) while on the job
He *could* be construed as "speaking" as a government representative....when the government is supposed to be neutral in this matter (states marriage rights and all).
In my opinion, the government is supposed to hold a viewpoint that is neutral in most matters....but in some circumstances, when the rights of others are "injured" then they are able to step in and use their governmental muscle.
Think of it in this context: the Supreme Court supported the vile voice of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at veterans funerals, because if they forced the WBC to be "silent" then it would be impeding their right to speech.
I therefore don't believe that the problem is so much that these people hold views that may seem homophobic....it's that they are displaying their support *in a government office* and *on government property*.....therefore, it may be construed by *some* that the government is vicariously supporting a viewpoint that (in my opinion) tramples on the rights of others about who they should love, marry, and raise children with.
Again...it's not their view/opinion that is being challenged, it's how/where/when their view/opinion is being expressed that is at issue.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
So nobody who works for the govt can have bumper stickers on the vehicle they drive to work?
47598
Post by: motyak
Grey Templar wrote:So nobody who works for the govt can have bumper stickers on the vehicle they drive to work?
And take the bumper stickers into their office to display
And try and spruik them to subordinates
etc.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Nobody had to accept them. And Offices are personal space.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
Offices are not personal space.
Try and take your pants off to relax in your cubicle at work and see how far your argument of "its personal space" gets you before you are hauled down to HR (or escorted to the curb).
Shall I assume you don't have much real world office/work experience?
You may be allowed some personal items at work...provided they aren't found to be offensive by anyone.
And if they are....the employer can have you remove them....or even have you removed.
It is --their-- space. Their office. They pay the building rent. Thwy pay you to be there.
There truly is nothing 'personal' at an office.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Offices are most definitely not personal space. The owners can definitely tell you what you can and cannot do or have in them.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I had to "sterile" my assault pack being I had "ISAF" and "Infidel" velcro on it. One has to be "neutral" in the work area. Your vehicle is your private property even if it parked on government property though you are warned that property destruction might occur due to someone taking offense to what's "advertise"
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Why am I not surprised you had an Infidel patch?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Because Non Muslims are Infidels.
I'm an Infidel
Your an Infidel
If Iraq and Afghanistan was Christian base I would have gone with "Heretic"
Dark Humor
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Being deliberately antagonistic is always the best policy.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Or maybe I do not care what you think of me?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Indeed, the best policy.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Back on track:
I always found Star Wars to be very racist.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 WarOne wrote:Back on track:
I always found Star Wars to be very racist.
The black guy is the main antagonist, what do you expect.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Example be the Wookies
37231
Post by: d-usa
And so nationalistic, why do all the baddies have to be British?
25220
Post by: WarOne
Actually, Star Wars supports incomprehensible left leaning liberal hippies.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I thought the inability of storm troopers to hit anything was a social commentary about how white guys can't play basketball and are unable to hit the basket?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
No, plot armour and they were supposed to let them escape in the first movie.
*complete resistance to joke*
25220
Post by: WarOne
d-usa wrote:I thought the inability of storm troopers to hit anything was a social commentary about how white guys can't play basketball and are unable to hit the basket?
Or that it meant that gun control for Caucasians was ineffectual because we couldn't hit the broad side of a Wookie either way.
Truly Star Wars has alot to teach us about social commentary.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
"...these blast points, too accurate for sand people. Only imperial storm troopers are so precise"
37231
Post by: d-usa
The "light" side is better than the "dark" side?
25220
Post by: WarOne
d-usa wrote:The "light" side is better than the "dark" side?
I thought that was an allusion to the choice of meat color for poultry....
37231
Post by: d-usa
WarOne wrote: d-usa wrote:The "light" side is better than the "dark" side?
I thought that was an allusion to the choice of meat color for poultry....
Racism is wrong. Unless you are talking about turkey, then it's delicious.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
What was a discussion about racism is now star wars jokes...
I love dakka.
34390
Post by: whembly
Well... this thread is going places.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
d-usa wrote:I thought the inability of storm troopers to hit anything was a social commentary about how white guys can't play basketball and are unable to hit the basket?
Training failure. they never learned how to zero their weapons
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Jihadin wrote: d-usa wrote:I thought the inability of storm troopers to hit anything was a social commentary about how white guys can't play basketball and are unable to hit the basket?
Training failure. they never learned how to zero their weapons
Maybe power-packs for blast rifles are cheaper than training? So economics of scale favor "shoot early, shoot often" over "we are going to spend 2 more weeks training you to actually hit".
Star Wars is not only racist, but it's also a biting social commentary of the military-industrial complex!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
d-usa wrote: Jihadin wrote: d-usa wrote:I thought the inability of storm troopers to hit anything was a social commentary about how white guys can't play basketball and are unable to hit the basket?
Training failure. they never learned how to zero their weapons
Maybe power-packs for blast rifles are cheaper than training? So economics of scale favor "shoot early, shoot often" over "we are going to spend 2 more weeks training you to actually hit".
Star Wars is not only racist, but it's also a biting social commentary of the military-industrial complex!
Budget or Sequester in play 
25220
Post by: WarOne
Jihadin wrote: d-usa wrote: Jihadin wrote: d-usa wrote:I thought the inability of storm troopers to hit anything was a social commentary about how white guys can't play basketball and are unable to hit the basket?
Training failure. they never learned how to zero their weapons
Maybe power-packs for blast rifles are cheaper than training? So economics of scale favor "shoot early, shoot often" over "we are going to spend 2 more weeks training you to actually hit".
Star Wars is not only racist, but it's also a biting social commentary of the military-industrial complex!
Budget or Sequester in play
I'm curious if the Republicans took Episodes I, II, III as the playbook for their current political strategy....
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I'm curious if the Republicans took Episodes I, II, III as the playbook for their current political strategy....
Only a Liberal deals in absolutes
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Saying people can't say they are offended by the idiocy is infringing on theirs.
Nobody said they can't be offended.
We're saying you can't discriminate based on what someone says with their right to free speech.
I'm not sure how this sort of thing keeps happening, over and over again, and yet despite having this conversation over and over again, we still have people who believe you literally can say whatever you want, without consequences, because of free speech. It's truly remarkable.
That's not how it works.
The first amendment protects your speech, and not all of it, from the government censoring that speech. If you say you think Obama is a secret muslim socialist, the police can't come and arrest you for talking smack against the President. If you run a saucy editorial about how you heard that Mitch McConnell can't reach orgasm unless he's being slapped in the face with a picture of Janet Reno, then the FBI cannot come and shut down your newspaper.
It restrains the government. Not private actors.
There can, and has been, and will continue to be, completely lawful discrimination based upon your speech from private actors. People have been fired for showing up with bumper stickers that their bosses didn't like, because the first amendment doesn't give you immunity from the consequences of your speech from non-governmental actors.
f you say something your employer doesn't like wholly unrelated to your job, and it reflects badly on them, they can, and will, fire you unless you have some contract preventing this.
If you go tell your boss you think he or she is a real idiot, and then say "can't do anything, free speech" you'll be boxing up your desk within an hour. You probably already know this, so I'm not sure what's with this weird obstinacy to how reality works.
Protected classes, as referenced earlier, have nothing to do with the first amendment, they're elements of nondiscrimination laws in the workplace and mostly stem from the 14th amendment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
d-usa wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Example be the Wookies
Suddenly, this thread was mightily improved.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Saying people can't say they are offended by the idiocy is infringing on theirs.
Nobody said they can't be offended.
We're saying you can't discriminate based on what someone says with their right to free speech.
I'm not sure how this sort of thing keeps happening, over and over again, and yet despite having this conversation over and over again, we still have people who believe you literally can say whatever you want, without consequences, because of free speech. It's truly remarkable.
That's not how it works.
The first amendment protects your speech, and not all of it, from the government censoring that speech. If you say you think Obama is a secret muslim socialist, the police can't come and arrest you for talking smack against the President. If you run a saucy editorial about how you heard that Mitch McConnell can't reach orgasm unless he's being slapped in the face with a picture of Janet Reno, then the FBI cannot come and shut down your newspaper.
It restrains the government. Not private actors.
There can, and has been, and will continue to be, completely lawful discrimination based upon your speech from private actors. People have been fired for showing up with bumper stickers that their bosses didn't like, because the first amendment doesn't give you immunity from the consequences of your speech from non-governmental actors.
f you say something your employer doesn't like wholly unrelated to your job, and it reflects badly on them, they can, and will, fire you unless you have some contract preventing this.
If you go tell your boss you think he or she is a real idiot, and then say "can't do anything, free speech" you'll be boxing up your desk within an hour. You probably already know this, so I'm not sure what's with this weird obstinacy to how reality works.
Protected classes, as referenced earlier, have nothing to do with the first amendment, they're elements of nondiscrimination laws in the workplace and mostly stem from the 14th amendment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
So you have zero problems with any private employer being able to fire anyone for any reason if they say, or display, anything they don't like?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:So you have zero problems with any private employer being able to fire anyone for any reason if they say, or display, anything they don't like?
I didn't express a personal preference one way or the other, but what you describe, as quoted above, is in fact legally accurate the overwhelming majority of the time.
You can be fired at any time for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, so long as it's not discrimination against a protected class, and presuming you don't have a contract. You can be for being too ugly, for not being ugly enough, for being too tall or too short, for saying you voted in a way your boss doesn't like, for saying you think it's a damn shame Firefly got cancelled, and for saying you like the Mets or the Yankees or just that you like soccer better than baseball.
Free speech just doesn't play into it, at all.
So, that was the simple answer.
The more complex wrinkle is that, since the first amendment does restrain the government, it would also protect government employees, within reason. If you work for the Post Office and tell your boss you voted for Kerry and get fired, it was unlawful. This is not absolute - if you call your boss an an idiot, you're getting fired government employee or not (probably).
37231
Post by: d-usa
And it's not just any employee.
It's a person in a position of power over other employees. A person who has the power to discipline, promote, pass up for promotion, assign vacations, to his employees - employees who are also gay and/or black. A person with that power over people who says, at work, that he agrees with the guy that they are no better than sheep fethers and were happier Before they got rights.
It hurts morale and creates a hostile work environment, and when your vacation gets denied you don't know if it was legit or if it was because you are gay and he thinks you are a sheep fether.
I expect the FoxNews article to have a misleading headline, I just figured the odds were better that you guys wouldn't fall for it.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Private sector more likely but Government sector one cannot be fired for what's displayed on your PoV. Adjudicators who display their faith on their PoV in immigration can excuse themselves from adjudicating on same sex cases on moral and/or religious conviction by verbal alone. I have "Infidel" on my vehicle and display a beret in view on my desk My collar does not have a flag but miniature unit crests but I can also choose to not adjudicate on Muslims and not have negative actions on me.
If the individuals were in the areas of conflict I was in.
One GOLDEN RULE
Do not preach, lecture, put out flyers, talk negative about anyone in the CoC, make hostile remarks about race/politics/policy/decisions, and/or fukk with someone immigration forms being the severe impact that can happen
12313
Post by: Ouze
There is a useful paper here, if you're interested; but it's sort of a longish read (40 pages, but readable).
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Good read. Bear in mind though. If I, notionally, adjudicate a Iraqi immigration form who is from one of the areas I was engaged in combat at back then and in this time period I find multiple faults in his application for citizenship and denied his application thereby ruining his chance to gain citizenship due to false statements USCIS and I can be sued because I might hold a grudge against him due to him living in an a area I was engaged in combat at. This is all notional though but an example. Notionally to is a good portion of Adjudicators are former vets. I might be entirely wrong
37231
Post by: d-usa
Jihadin wrote:Good read. Bear in mind though. If I, notionally, adjudicate a Iraqi immigration form who is from one of the areas I was engaged in combat at back then and in this time period I find multiple faults in his application for citizenship and denied his application thereby ruining his chance to gain citizenship due to false statements USCIS and I can be sued because I might hold a grudge against him due to him living in an a area I was engaged in combat at. This is all notional though but an example. Notionally to is a good portion of Adjudicators are former vets. I might be entirely wrong
And that is really the main issue in this case. Although instead of having authority over applicants like you do, he has authority over internal employees.
He might have 10 perfectly legitimate reason to pass his gay black employee up for promotion. But by handing out "I support Phil (the guy who thinks you are equal to a sheep fether and happier without civil rights)" at work he creates an environment where his perfectly legitimate decision suddenly becomes open to scrutiny and creates an environment of hostility, distruct, and potential liability for the agency. There is no reason for him to create that environment and as a manager he is held to a different standard than other employees.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Yet nothing will happen to the two senior management officials. For all we know. The individual in question might have been passed up for promotion have had recent negative PPE against him/her or the individual might have been under a performance observation. For all we know the Union member was not following the union contract "Statement of Work". Either way. It does not matter what one does in their personnel life. Mind you, IIRC, Unions were behind this sort of policy about using personnel issues and/or views against someone.
I highly doubt Phil manage to brainwash these two Senior Management Officials recently being they must have harbor or practice discriminatory selection for promotion throughout their entire leadership time and its been discovered now.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Jihadin wrote:Yet nothing will happen to the two senior management officials. For all we know. The individual in question might have been passed up for promotion have had recent negative PPE against him/her or the individual might have been under a performance observation. For all we know the Union member was not following the union contract "Statement of Work". Either way. It does not matter what one does in their personnel life. Mind you, IIRC, Unions were behind this sort of policy about using personnel issues and/or views against someone.
But putting stickers in your office space and handing them out to coworkers during duty hours is not exactly "their personnel life".
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I have a maroon beret on my desk. He handed out Duck Dynasty stickers. Which is more political statement? Also, they might have been gifts. You can hand out gifts as long as they are under twenty dollars per gift.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Jihadin wrote:I have a maroon beret on my desk. He handed out Duck Dynasty stickers. Which is more political statement? Also, they might have been gifts. You can hand out gifts as long as they are under twenty dollars per gift.
It doesn't have anything to do with political statements.
It has nothing to do with handing out gifts under a certain dollar limit.
Try to focus.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
If there is no evidence that discrimination took place, there are no grounds for doing anything to these guys.
Its literally just a witch hunt because someone has an unpopular viewpoint.
"My Boss doesn't like gays. There are gays who work for him. Thus any time he doesn't give them nice things he might be discriminating, he should be fired!"
Surely everyone can see the ridiculousness of that train of thought.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote:If there is no evidence that discrimination took place, there are no grounds for doing anything to these guys.
Its literally just a witch hunt because someone has an unpopular viewpoint.
"My Boss doesn't like gays. There are gays who work for him. Thus any time he doesn't give them nice things he might be discriminating, he should be fired!"
"My boss promotes his anti-gay viewpoint at work and hands out stickers promoting it to fellow employees while at work."
Surely everyone can see the ridiculousness of that train of thought.
The Supreme Court can't, so there is that.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote:People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.
The Supreme Court has found that these factors can be considered when public sector workers have their free speech restricted:
- Does it impair discipline or harmony among co-workers
- Does it have a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary.
- Does it Interfere with the normal operation of the employer’s business.
While promoting stuff at your government job is already not allowed, the Supreme Court isn't exactly agreeing with you that a boss can promote and hand out unpopular and offensive viewpoints at work.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
d-usa wrote: Grey Templar wrote:If there is no evidence that discrimination took place, there are no grounds for doing anything to these guys.
Its literally just a witch hunt because someone has an unpopular viewpoint.
"My Boss doesn't like gays. There are gays who work for him. Thus any time he doesn't give them nice things he might be discriminating, he should be fired!"
"My boss promotes his anti-gay viewpoint at work and hands out stickers promoting it to fellow employees while at work."
Surely everyone can see the ridiculousness of that train of thought.
The Supreme Court can't, so there is that.
Then no one can wear crosses at government workplace. Wait! Even further. Since Christian faith is against same sex marriage then we are ignoring "Separation of Church and State" in the Government
I'm a non- Christian and my Supervisor is attends Church every weekend. I am in mortal fear of him 
I hate Insurgents. I view all Muslims as Insurgents.
I handed out .50 cal round bottle openers that were Three Dollar a piece. I guess I advocate Open Carry
I'm Asian but since majority of"detainee's" I coordinate for transfer are Hispanic I might be consider a Hater and a Racist against Hispanic
Since I do not openly support a fellow co-worker in a same sex marriage debate I must be against same sex marriage.
I dislike all the policies being approved by the Obama Admin to allow Illegal Immigrants ways to avoid deportation yet I follow the guide lines that are current and in circulation. I just cannot hand out Republican stickers.
Yet no one making a ant hill into Mount Rainer where I am at nor any other places I head to.
I watch Duck Dynasty myself and I do like a lot of their values and morals. Since I am a fan i guess I must support Phil eh
Edit
Duck Dynasty sticker is now offensive and unpopular?
37231
Post by: d-usa
There has never been a Duck Dynasty sticker to begin with and the show has nothing to do with it.
241
Post by: Ahtman
No it isn't, some Christians are, but not the entire faith. Everything was like from a chain letter sent to senior citizens to scare them but isn't based in reality.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Jihadin wrote:
Then no one can wear crosses at government workplace. Wait! Even further. Since Christian faith is against same sex marriage then we are ignoring "Separation of Church and State" in the Government
- Your boss can't hand you out a "come to my church" flyer at work.
I'm a non- Christian and my Supervisor is attends Church every weekend. I am in mortal fear of him
- Your supervisor can't tell you to come to his church.
I hate Insurgents. I view all Muslims as Insurgents.
- You can't hand out fliers at work saying "all Muslims are insurgents"
I handed out .50 cal round bottle openers that were Three Dollar a piece. I guess I advocate Open Carry
- You got lucky you don't have a crazy boss or that anybody complained and took it as a threat.
I'm Asian but since majority of"detainee's" I coordinate for transfer are Hispanic I might be consider a Hater and a Racist against Hispanic
- They are not your employees, so this argument is stupid. But if they were: you can't hand out fliers saying "I don't like hispanics".
Since I do not openly support a fellow co-worker in a same sex marriage debate I must be against same sex marriage.
- You cannot hand out "this is why he shouldn't be able to get married" fliers to everybody.
I dislike all the policies being approved by the Obama Admin to allow Illegal Immigrants ways to avoid deportation yet I follow the guide lines that are current and in circulation. I just cannot hand out Republican stickers.
-You already explained what you can and cannot do there.
Yet no one making a ant hill into Mount Rainer where I am at nor any other places I head to.
I watch Duck Dynasty myself and I do like a lot of their values and morals. Since I am a fan i guess I must support Phil eh
-You can watch the show and like their morals, you can even support phil.
Maybe someday you will understand the fine distance between "having a particular viewpoint" and "promoting that particular viewpoint at work where it could run against the rules laid out by your boss and which were found constitutional by the SCOTUS".
50512
Post by: Jihadin
d-usa wrote: Jihadin wrote:
Then no one can wear crosses at government workplace. Wait! Even further. Since Christian faith is against same sex marriage then we are ignoring "Separation of Church and State" in the Government
- Your boss can't hand you out a "come to my church" flyer at work.
I'm a non- Christian and my Supervisor is attends Church every weekend. I am in mortal fear of him
- Your supervisor can't tell you to come to his church.
I hate Insurgents. I view all Muslims as Insurgents.
- You can't hand out fliers at work saying "all Muslims are insurgents"
I handed out .50 cal round bottle openers that were Three Dollar a piece. I guess I advocate Open Carry
- You got lucky you don't have a crazy boss or that anybody complained and took it as a threat.
I'm Asian but since majority of"detainee's" I coordinate for transfer are Hispanic I might be consider a Hater and a Racist against Hispanic
- They are not your employees, so this argument is stupid. But if they were: you can't hand out fliers saying "I don't like hispanics".
Since I do not openly support a fellow co-worker in a same sex marriage debate I must be against same sex marriage.
- You cannot hand out "this is why he shouldn't be able to get married" fliers to everybody.
I dislike all the policies being approved by the Obama Admin to allow Illegal Immigrants ways to avoid deportation yet I follow the guide lines that are current and in circulation. I just cannot hand out Republican stickers.
-You already explained what you can and cannot do there.
Yet no one making a ant hill into Mount Rainer where I am at nor any other places I head to.
I watch Duck Dynasty myself and I do like a lot of their values and morals. Since I am a fan i guess I must support Phil eh
-You can watch the show and like their morals, you can even support phil.
Maybe someday you will understand the fine distance between "having a particular viewpoint" and "promoting that particular viewpoint at work where it could run against the rules laid out by your boss and which were found constitutional by the SCOTUS".
Outstanding now your getting there
Alan Cooper, the executive vice president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, said one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates.
but
The individual told me he was especially upset after union workers took photographs of his truck and his license plate and emailed the images to other union members. That email was reportedly sent to hundreds and hundreds of personnel.
being that he
He said he has absolutely no plans to remove the decal from his truck.
That action can get whoever took the pics and passed it around fired for endangerment.
Concludes
And that’s exactly what the Air Force believes it is. They investigated the claims made by the union and determined that the two civilian workers were well within their rights to support Duck Dynasty.
“Brigadier General Dave Harris is not taking any action against the individual as the display of such a bumper sticker is considered legally protected speech under the First Amendment,” said Andy Bourland, director of public affairs at the military base
So its a no issue.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Taking photographs of the truck is just union thuggery, no excuse there.
241
Post by: Ahtman
d-usa wrote:Taking photographs of the truck is just union thuggery, no excuse there.
Agreed. The problem that started it wasn't that though, and seems more rooted in the "one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates".
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes. It's not illegal, but it's certainly clearly meant to be intimidating.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Passing out stickers is intimidating? But passing out photos of a guys vehicle and bad mouthing about someone isn't?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You can offer but you cannot pass out material
Offering = one has a choice of "yes" and "no"
Passing out = one has that awkward moment of ignoring or saying no *edit to add* or both
Simple but stupid but falls under "KISS"
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I see no difference between them.
You can say yes, no, or ignore to either of them.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Why I play it safe and only offer coffee "Box of Joe's"
241
Post by: Ahtman
Grey Templar wrote:But passing out photos of a guys vehicle and bad mouthing about someone isn't?
I believe that was what was being referred to as intimidating.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes, I should have quoted that.
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:He is not saying he is in favor of any kind of disrespect or discrimination against gay people. He is just saying that he thinks it is a sin. He doesn’t like it. That’s all he has said.
I have absolutely no idea how anyone on Earth could honestly hold a position that more or less boils down to "I think your love of another person is a sin that by my religion will get you cast in to Hell, but I don't mean to disrespect you or anything."
You think it's a sin, be honest and accept what you're saying to other people about their lives... or maybe do some real thinking about what sin is. But this half-assed thing where people think it's okay to morally condemn other people for their love lives, but then step back and say 'but I'd never disrespect you'... well that's just fething lame. Automatically Appended Next Post:
He said that other people lovelifes and relationships are sinful. I mean holy fething gak this isn't complicated.
He just stated his opinion and beliefs. Everyone is entitled to those. Saying he can't say them is infringing on the right to free speech.
No. Government punishing him for expressing his opinion would be an infringement on the right to free speech. Everything else is fair game.
This means if a company doesn't want to be associated with a guy who's said something controversial then they can stop employing him. There is no free speech protection from that. And it means that if some activist group wants to pressure a company to fire a guy who said something controversial, then there is again no free speech protection.
Whether the company or the activist group is right in applying that pressure is a whole other question, and one on which I side with letting the bigots and other controversial figures say their piece without fear of punishment, but as simple point of law you are miles off base. Automatically Appended Next Post: Co'tor Shas wrote:But should we be accepting of, racists, sexists, homophones, nazis, ect.?
To the extent that we are fearful of letting that tendency in society to punish anyone who goes against the grain to become all powerful, then we must temper our desire to punish bigots and donkey-caves. This means that yeah, it means that jerks like the Duck Dynasty guy should just be left alone, muttering their stupid crap and starring in some 'laugh at/with the pretend hillbillies' show. Such is life.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
I have absolutely no idea how anyone on Earth could honestly hold a position that more or less boils down to "I think your love of another person is a sin that by my religion will get you cast in to Hell, but I don't mean to disrespect you or anything."
You think it's a sin, be honest and accept what you're saying to other people about their lives... or maybe do some real thinking about what sin is. But this half-assed thing where people think it's okay to morally condemn other people for their love lives, but then step back and say 'but I'd never disrespect you'... well that's just fething lame.
Except they aren't supposed to, it's supposed to be hate the sin, love the sinner. You should not disrespect that person at all, to look down on them is to judge them and that itself is considered a sin, which Jesus himself spoke that is a bad thing.
Pity most people seem to forget that part..
5470
Post by: sebster
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:Except they aren't supposed to, it's supposed to be hate the sin, love the sinner. You should not disrespect that person at all, to look down on them is to judge them and that itself is considered a sin, which Jesus himself spoke that is a bad thing.
Pity most people seem to forget that part..
Except that 'hate the sin, not the sinner' is a position that works for, say, gambling, where you can say you hate that a person gambles, but still love them. Because a person can come or go from gambling without being a fundamentally different person.
But when it comes to sexual identity and who a person loves... the position makes no sense. "I believe that the most intimate relationship in your life, the one that you have built your life around and created a household and family around, is a sin. But I don't disrespect you in any way... just your life, home and family."
It's completely ridiculous.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 sebster wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:Except they aren't supposed to, it's supposed to be hate the sin, love the sinner. You should not disrespect that person at all, to look down on them is to judge them and that itself is considered a sin, which Jesus himself spoke that is a bad thing.
Pity most people seem to forget that part..
Except that 'hate the sin, not the sinner' is a position that works for, say, gambling, where you can say you hate that a person gambles, but still love them. Because a person can come or go from gambling without being a fundamentally different person.
But when it comes to sexual identity and who a person loves... the position makes no sense. "I believe that the most intimate relationship in your life, the one that you have built your life around and created a household and family around, is a sin. But I don't disrespect you in any way... just your life, home and family."
It's completely ridiculous.
No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.
Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.
Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.
Except that even the gambler will see that the life they've built around their gambling addiction is dysfunctional - not a happy place to be.
On the other hand, people trying to claim that they 'hate the sin but hate the sinner' will point to a same sex couple in a loving, intimate relationship in which they might even be raising a family of their own, and say 'oh I love you and wish the best for you but I hate that sinful life you're leading'.
And that's some fething ridiculous nonsense. They are leading a good, happy life. The only loving response is to be happy for them. When people can't actually be happy for them, it's pretty clear they don't actually care about them as people, all they really care about is their cultural identity and all the things that cultural identity tells them to hate.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
sebster wrote: Grey Templar wrote:No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.
Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.
Except that even the gambler will see that the life they've built around their gambling addiction is dysfunctional - not a happy place to be.
On the other hand, people trying to claim that they 'hate the sin but hate the sinner' will point to a same sex couple in a loving, intimate relationship in which they might even be raising a family of their own, and say 'oh I love you and wish the best for you but I hate that sinful life you're leading'.
And that's some fething ridiculous nonsense. They are leading a good, happy life. The only loving response is to be happy for them. When people can't actually be happy for them, it's pretty clear they don't actually care about them as people, all they really care about is their cultural identity and all the things that cultural identity tells them to hate.
By our definition, they arn't leading a good life. It might be happy for them, but its not "good".
Its not contradictory. I view it as sin, but as people I am commanded to love them. They can be extended forgiveness like anyone else if they ask for it. And I'll show them God's love. If it comes up I'll point out the folly of their ways and how neither I nor God approve of it.
You can easily do both.
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:By our definition, they arn't leading a good life. It might be happy for them, but its not "good".
And there's the issue. You're using the definition granted to you by one particular interpretation of your religion to define how you think of them and their lives. That ain't love.
And so be it, if your politics and personal identity is more important. Just own that. Be honest, stop with this half-assed, patronising crap that you do love them as people, because it obviously isn't true - they are at best abstract theories in your head, not actual people that you think about, let alone love.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Grey Templar wrote:
No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.
Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.
Serious? I think the bigger sin is not treating others how you would want to be treated yourself. Or optionally acting like a Pharisee and being high and mighty about the 'law' (church law, and following it as RAW) and not following the christian rules as RAI.
Jesus was way cool, some following him aren't.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
sebster wrote: Grey Templar wrote:By our definition, they arn't leading a good life. It might be happy for them, but its not "good".
And there's the issue. You're using the definition granted to you by one particular interpretation of your religion to define how you think of them and their lives. That ain't love.
And so be it, if your politics and personal identity is more important. Just own that. Be honest, stop with this half-assed, patronising crap that you do love them as people, because it obviously isn't true - they are at best abstract theories in your head, not actual people that you think about, let alone love.
So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?
By that definition, if your wife has an annoying habit you absolutely loath you can't possibly love her.
and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?
Once again, one's sexual identity and the most intimate relationship they've formed and built a family and life around is simply one facet of their lives.
You are ignoring this because, to repeat myself, you don't actually a give a gak about the people you purport to love.
And there's nothing wrong with not loving those people, nothing wrong with not giving two gaks about them. But there is something wrong in claiming you love someone when clearly you don't actually give a gak about whether they are leading a healthy, happy life, and instead are happy to just call that life a sin.
and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.
Yeah, because the bible is famous for it's simple, clear, direct statements of right and wrong.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Grey Templar wrote:and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.
The bible is full of stuff that doesn't make any sense what so ever. I don't see people rushing out to follow every aspect of the bible, nor do I see everyone who reads the bible come away with the same interpretation. In fact I would say that your interpretation of the bible is considered by most christians to be wildly incorrect in most regards (in general rather than just on homosexuality).
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Grey Templar wrote:
and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.
I'm going to avoid hopping into this debate only to pause on this one. I know a few have already hit you on this but the Bible is by no means clear cut. It's vague, illogical at times, and has many different looks. God goes from in the old part claiming that shrimp is bad to being alright with it in the next section despite previously being noted to hate shrimp (as well as wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and sowing different types of seed into the same field). Simpy put, there is no one proper interpretation to the Bible.
Homosexual acts? They are mentioned approximately four times and never really brought to the forefront. It's never really the point being made more like a sin on the side or something to that line. I'd pull some mentioning scriptures such as Gen 19:8 Lot as an example of parts of the bible that would be difficult to find a way to explain in modern times to point to some no real one way to read it (such things change over time as well) nor could you for many of the mentions of slavery.
18698
Post by: kronk
Grey Templar wrote:People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.
Most places I've worked have had a very strict "No solicitation" policy. Management most certainly does not send out fliers that say "Vote Quimby, he'd vote for you!" and so on. This policy also prevents you from bringing your daughter's Girl Scout Cookies into the break room to sell. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote:
So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?
I don't love any of my coworkers. Sadly, because there was this one quality lab manager...
241
Post by: Ahtman
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
kronk wrote:This policy also prevents you from bringing your daughter's Girl Scout Cookies into the break room to sell.
More Somoas for me then!
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote: Grey Templar wrote:People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.
Most places I've worked have had a very strict "No solicitation" policy. Management most certainly does not send out fliers that say "Vote Quimby, he'd vote for you!" and so on. This policy also prevents you from bringing your daughter's Girl Scout Cookies into the break room to sell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:
So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?
I don't love any of my coworkers. Sadly, because there was this one quality lab manager...
I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Do you want to be the man that ticks of a million soccer moms? Have you seen what they can do? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT THEY DO?!?!?!?!?!
12313
Post by: Ouze
Man, now I am dying for some Girl Scout Cookies.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 streamdragon wrote:Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!
I will have you know that solicitations are against the rules and that any violation will not be tolerated.
But there is really nothing anybody can do if you are careless enough to leave your personal papers laying around the break room and your hooligan coworkers deface it with a bunch of random numbers
27151
Post by: streamdragon
d-usa wrote: streamdragon wrote:Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!
I will have you know that solicitations are against the rules and that any violation will not be tolerated.
But there is really nothing anybody can do if you are careless enough to leave your personal papers laying around the break room and your hooligan coworkers deface it with a bunch of random numbers
The "post the order for on the wall" thing has always flown for two reasons:
1. Technically, it's not a solicitation. No one is actually offering to sell you cookies, but if you want them there's the order form.
2. Thin mints are godly.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: streamdragon wrote:Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!
I will have you know that solicitations are against the rules and that any violation will not be tolerated.
But there is really nothing anybody can do if you are careless enough to leave your personal papers laying around the break room and your hooligan coworkers deface it with a bunch of random numbers
Exactly!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Hatch Act.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.
Technically it's not allowed in the rules and conditions of my workplace. It would be considered using company time and company resources to manage your own business interests. Even when its not-for-profit.
I've never seen it enforced, of course.
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.
Technically it's not allowed in the rules and conditions of my workplace. It would be considered using company time and company resources to manage your own business interests. Even when its not-for-profit.
I've never seen it enforced, of course.
Yup... no solicitation policy is common here too.
And we still order cookies because no one in their right mind would get in between someone's right to Thin Mints.
It does irks me tho, that my company has a "no solicitation" policy, but every year they encourage employees to participate in the United Way Fund programs.
 that! 
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Most stuff like that is really just to stop competitors anyway. No boss ever minded my selling boy scout chocolate and popcorn at my mom's work (my dad works for the gov. so they didn't mind either).
5470
Post by: sebster
Yep, it's management writing policies for hypothetical problems, which basically get ignored in the daily running of the business.
In other news, Americans always go on about Thin Mints, and I've always wanted to try one... but when I was in the US I got burned on Hershey's, Reece's Pieces, Twinkies and some other stuff, so...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Remove those two words from your mind. If not willing to remove those to words from your mind Electro shock therapy helps.........damn you Sebster....thin mints.......I ssooooo hate you for making me remember...tthhhiiinnnnn mints.
REPORTED!!
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:
Yep, it's management writing policies for hypothetical problems, which basically get ignored in the daily running of the business.
In other news, Americans always go on about Thin Mints, and I've always wanted to try one... but when I was in the US I got burned on Hershey's, Reece's Pieces, Twinkies and some other stuff, so...
I will kidnap you and sell your soul to gypsies for Caramel DeLites...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Words cannot describe how much I hate Duck Dynasty. The whole thing is fake. Even the BEARDS are fake. When the family pitched the show, they even said it was going to be vaguely scripted. I believe they believe what they believe. But after seeing the old pics I have to wonder if they dont put on the whole "I eat what I shoot" thing.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
hotsauceman1 wrote:Words cannot describe how much I hate Duck Dynasty. The whole thing is fake. Even the BEARDS are fake. When the family pitched the show, they even said it was going to be vaguely scripted. I believe they believe what they believe. But after seeing the old pics I have to wonder if they dont put on the whole "I eat what I shoot" thing.
You don't have to be weird backwoods hillbillies to eat what you shoot.
18698
Post by: kronk
sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.
Technically it's not allowed in the rules and conditions of my workplace. It would be considered using company time and company resources to manage your own business interests. Even when its not-for-profit.
I've never seen it enforced, of course.
The plant manager gave a "gentle reminder" during one of our safety meetings that solicitations are not allowed. It came about due to some very pushy moms trying to sell gak for their kid's "whatever" team.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Excellent. People saving money in your workplace to buy Girl Scouts cookies. Manager must have young daughters
18698
Post by: kronk
I think he just got tired of the bitching. He has a very low tolerance for it.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Start bringing in Thin Mints. Leave a box "lying" around
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote:
In other news, Americans always go on about Thin Mints, and I've always wanted to try one... but when I was in the US I got burned on Hershey's, Reece's Pieces, Twinkies and some other stuff, so...
If I remember the next time I send in my order... I'll order some extras and send it to you.
I hope shipping to AU isn't ridiculous...
One hasn't lived until you had the Thin Mints.
EDIT: I like freezing the cookies... then eat 'em with a bowl a vanilla ice cream.
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote: sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.
Technically it's not allowed in the rules and conditions of my workplace. It would be considered using company time and company resources to manage your own business interests. Even when its not-for-profit. I've never seen it enforced, of course.
The plant manager gave a "gentle reminder" during one of our safety meetings that solicitations are not allowed. It came about due to some very pushy moms trying to sell gak for their kid's "whatever" team.
Steer clear of the plant manager. I predict something really bad will happen to him shortly. As an official girl scout (you should see me in my short shift and matching shotguns) you feth with us, you feth with the best!
12313
Post by: Ouze
Holy gak, Sebster's never had a Thin Mint?
You literally have no idea what you are missing.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Frazzled wrote: kronk wrote: sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.
Technically it's not allowed in the rules and conditions of my workplace. It would be considered using company time and company resources to manage your own business interests. Even when its not-for-profit.
I've never seen it enforced, of course.
The plant manager gave a "gentle reminder" during one of our safety meetings that solicitations are not allowed. It came about due to some very pushy moms trying to sell gak for their kid's "whatever" team.
Steer clear of the plant manager. I predict something really bad will happen to him shortly. As an official girl scout (you should see me in my short shift and matching shotguns) you feth with us, you feth with the best!
Don't you mean wiener-scouts ?
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
Ouze wrote:Holy gak, Sebster's never had a Thin Mint?
You literally have no idea what you are missing.
Thin pieces of mint?
34390
Post by: whembly
Are you serious????
You poor, poor soul.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Bromsy wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Words cannot describe how much I hate Duck Dynasty. The whole thing is fake. Even the BEARDS are fake. When the family pitched the show, they even said it was going to be vaguely scripted. I believe they believe what they believe. But after seeing the old pics I have to wonder if they dont put on the whole "I eat what I shoot" thing.
You don't have to be weird backwoods hillbillies to eat what you shoot.
I get that, and I dont doupt they do it. But I think after the TV show they played it up more
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
@sebster
from what I've heard, american Thin Mints are like our Arnott's Mint Slice
. . . but inferior
Oh yes, I went there
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 VorpalBunny74 wrote:@sebster
from what I've heard, american Thin Mints are like our Arnott's Mint Slice
. . . but inferior
Oh yes, I went there
You poor poor soul.
You have disparaged the sacred Thin Mint.
Karma will now dictate all deadly animals will now have it in for you. And sadly, you've chosen to live in Australia.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Grey Templar wrote: VorpalBunny74 wrote:@sebster
from what I've heard, american Thin Mints are like our Arnott's Mint Slice
. . . but inferior
Oh yes, I went there
You poor poor soul.
You have disparaged the sacred Thin Mint.
Karma will now dictate all deadly animals will now have it in for you. And sadly, you've chosen to live in Australia.
Australia sucks then You have no chance for Girl Scout cookies. So........(bunch of periods) deprived.
121
Post by: Relapse
hotsauceman1 wrote:Words cannot describe how much I hate Duck Dynasty. The whole thing is fake. Even the BEARDS are fake. When the family pitched the show, they even said it was going to be vaguely scripted. I believe they believe what they believe. But after seeing the old pics I have to wonder if they dont put on the whole "I eat what I shoot" thing.
Never bothered watching the show, but from what I've seen on these boards, I'd say the personas they put on are no different than rock singers, other actors, or for that matter, any other performer who adopts a public character or way of behavior when the cameras are on that brings in the cash.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I laughed my butt off when they freezer broke and the meat spoiled. Then they spent all day looking to dump it
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
Grey Templar wrote:Karma will now dictate all deadly animals will now have it in for you. And sadly, you've chosen to live in Australia.
I believe our deadly fauna will stand by my opinion 
34390
Post by: whembly
VorpalBunny74 wrote:@sebster
from what I've heard, american Thin Mints are like our Arnott's Mint Slice
. . . but inferior
Oh yes, I went there
HERESY!*
Exterminatus will commence!
*disclaimer: I've never had Arnott's Mint Slice.
I guess it's too 'Murrican then? Anyone in Europe get them?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Is it like a lot of American sweets which are apparently fantastic but actually not very nice when compared with stuff where you live?
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
SilverMK2 wrote:Is it like a lot of American sweets which are apparently fantastic but actually not very nice when compared with stuff where you live?
Actually it might be because they use different ingredients in some different countries for some odd reason.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
Well the Girl Scouts of America are yet to become an inter-continental distributor: that and I don't like mint
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
ZebioLizard2 wrote: SilverMK2 wrote:Is it like a lot of American sweets which are apparently fantastic but actually not very nice when compared with stuff where you live?
Actually it might be because they use different ingredients in some different countries for some odd reason.
As already mentioned we have higher standards
Though I have been to Americaland and eaten some of your sweets and not been particularly impressed for the most part.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Well the Girl Scouts of America are yet to become an inter-continental distributor: that and I don't like mint
Don't like mint? You have Jaimie Lannister in a Blackhawk jersey and you don't like mint. Irony of it
5470
Post by: sebster
whembly wrote:If I remember the next time I send in my order... I'll order some extras and send it to you.
I hope shipping to AU isn't ridiculous...
Actually, that's a really cool offer. I'll cover whatever it costs. Thanks, mate. Automatically Appended Next Post: VorpalBunny74 wrote:@sebster
from what I've heard, american Thin Mints are like our Arnott's Mint Slice
. . . but inferior
Oh yes, I went there
Okay. So they have a biscuit base, or are they like After Dinner Mints?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You are in the ballpark Sebster about whats in a thin Mint
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
If I'm ever in the states, I'll bring over a packet and tim tams for everybody!
sebster wrote:Okay. So they have a biscuit base, or are they like After Dinner Mints?
From what I've heard, biscuit covered in chocolate, so like Mint Slice but without the gooey layer.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They're crunchy goodness. Heaven in a bite
|
|
