Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The "light" side is better than the "dark" side?

 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....

 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.

What was a discussion about racism is now star wars jokes...
I love dakka.

Well... this thread is going places.

 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

 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!

 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

 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....

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

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Saying he can't say them is infringing on the right to free speech.

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:

 WarOne wrote:
I always found Star Wars to be very racist.

Jihadin wrote:Example be the Wookies

Suddenly, this thread was mightily improved.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Saying he can't say them is infringing on the right to free speech.

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?

 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).

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.

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

There is a useful paper here, if you're interested; but it's sort of a longish read (40 pages, but readable).

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

 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.

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.

 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".

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.

 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.

 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?

 Jihadin wrote:

Duck Dynasty sticker is now offensive and unpopular?

There has never been a Duck Dynasty sticker to begin with and the show has nothing to do with it.

 Jihadin wrote:
Since Christian faith is against same sex marriage

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.

 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".