View Poll Results: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 7.55%
  • no

    49 92.45%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

  1. #81
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-08-16 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Yes, but people do have the right to not speak. They do not have to tell how they voted. Even if badgered by an employer. They can simply say "Mind your own ****ing business". Any thing else is trampling on the employers rights. Consider if you hired someone to clean your house and pay them minimum wage. They tell you they voted to increase the minimum wage. Why should you not be able to fire them?
    From the ashes.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Yes, but people do have the right to not speak. They do not have to tell how they voted. Even if badgered by an employer. They can simply say "Mind your own ****ing business". Any thing else is trampling on the employers rights. Consider if you hired someone to clean your house and pay them minimum wage. They tell you they voted to increase the minimum wage. Why should you not be able to fire them?
    They did nothing wrong.

    An employer can terminate an employee for "no reason".

    However, if the employer does select a reason, that reason must be legal.

    In addition, an employee terminated for "no reason" would likely qualify to draw off of the employer's unemployment insurance to help compensate for the no-fault loss of income. This shows us that the employer cannot simply cut someone loose on a whim and be free and clear of any financial responsibility for doing so.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    They did nothing wrong.

    An employer can terminate an employee for "no reason".

    However, if the employer does select a reason, that reason must be legal.

    In addition, an employee terminated for "no reason" would likely qualify to draw off of the employer's unemployment insurance to help compensate for the no-fault loss of income. This shows us that the employer cannot simply cut someone loose on a whim and be free and clear of any financial responsibility for doing so.
    I don't think anyone is contesting the status of the current law. I realize that technically it's illegal to fire somebody for those reasons. What I'm saying is that it's unconstitutional. An employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason they see fit without fear of legal recourse. Obviously, if there are contractual aspects of the firing then it puts a different complexion on the matter, but you get my meaning.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I don't think anyone is contesting the status of the current law. I realize that technically it's illegal to fire somebody for those reasons. What I'm saying is that it's unconstitutional. An employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason they see fit without fear of legal recourse. Obviously, if there are contractual aspects of the firing then it puts a different complexion on the matter, but you get my meaning.
    What part of the constitution does the law violate?

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    What part of the constitution does the law violate?
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    -US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.


    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    -US Constitution, Ninth Amendment.


    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    -US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.


    The Ninth Amendment speaks for itself but in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the principle of private property rights are explicitly affirmed. It is given unique consideration due to its placement alongside the rights of life and liberty. These three rights are the foundation of natural rights and of the Constitution, and should be afforded the utmost respect and protection. A person's business is their property just the same as their home.

    So long as the operation of that business does not infringe on the rights of others they may do with it as they see fit. A person does not have the right or authority to compel a business owner to retain their services. It's my money, it's my property, and I will dispense with both however I please. Honestly, who are you to tell me otherwise?
    Last edited by Ethereal; 01-10-09 at 01:38 PM.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    -US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.


    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    -US Constitution, Ninth Amendment.


    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    -US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.


    The Ninth Amendment speaks for itself but in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the principle of private property rights are explicitly affirmed. It is given unique consideration due to its placement alongside the rights of life and liberty. These three rights are the foundation of natural rights and of the Constitution, and should be afforded the utmost respect and protection. A person's business is their property just the same as their home.

    So long as the operation of that business does not infringe on the rights of others they may do with it as they see fit. A person does not have the right or authority to compel a business owner to retain their services. It's my money, it's my property, and I will dispense with both however I please.
    Your right to be secure in your property exists and is valid, but does not exceed your employee's right to vote their conscience and be free from discrimination.

    You are correct in that such laws protecting employees from summery dismissal does infringe on the absolute concept you assert. What I need you to understand is your right to be secure in your property is not in fact absolute.

    This applies even to your own home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Honestly, who are you to tell me otherwise?
    Who I am and who you are is irrelevant to the indifferent facts of the mater.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-10-09 at 02:44 PM.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Your right to be secure in your property exists and is valid, but does not exceed your employee's right to vote their conscience and be free from discrimination.
    Although voting one's conscience is indeed a valid right - unlike the right to be free from discrimination - a private property owner exercising their right to hire and fire whom they wish in no way violates or infringes upon that right. Simply because a person was fired does not mean they were denied the ability or opportunity to exercise their right of voting for whom they please.

    As for a right not to be discriminated against, well, it simply doesn't exist. "Discrimination" is the exercise of choice or discernment by an individual, the basis for that "discrimination" is irrelevant. Saying that someone has a right not to be discriminated against implies the inability of other individuals to exercise choice or discernment. You cannot compel a person to forfeit their ability to discern and choose.

    Discrimination happens every day in a multitude of varying degrees and ways. When I refuse to go on a date with an unattractive woman I am discriminating against her on the basis that she is ugly. She has no right to forcibly submit me to her unpleasant appearance anymore than I have a right to forcibly submit her to my tiny penis. Discrimination is a fact of life and there is no right to be free of it.

    You are correct in that such laws protecting employees from summery dismissal does infringe on the absolute concept you assert. What I need you to understand is your right to be secure in your property is not in fact absolute.

    This applies even to your own home.
    I've always understood that rights are not absolute. Putting someone in prison is a violation of one's rights, but I would never claim that imprisonment is inherently unconstitutional. One may forfeit their rights, but only when they've conceivably violated the rights of others, that's what laws are supposed to do, uphold the Constitution.

    In your scenario no rights have been violated, thus anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional since they serve no relevant purpose in upholding or protecting an individual's rights.

    Who I am and who you are is irrelevant to the indifferent facts of the mater.
    Not "you" specifically, although the question does apply tangentially to "you". I should have been more specific.

    Who are "you" (anti-discrimination law proponents) to tell "me" (private business owners) otherwise?

    It's like that one song...

    Who are you?
    Who, who, who, who?
    Who are you?
    Who, who, who, who?
    Who are you?

    You probably though Roger Daltrey was talking specifically to you… ego maniac!

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Although voting one's conscience is indeed a valid right - unlike the right to be free from discrimination - a private property owner exercising their right to hire and fire whom they wish in no way violates or infringes upon that right. Simply because a person was fired does not mean they were denied the ability or opportunity to exercise their right of voting for whom they please.

    As for a right not to be discriminated against, well, it simply doesn't exist. "Discrimination" is the exercise of choice or discernment by an individual, the basis for that "discrimination" is irrelevant. Saying that someone has a right not to be discriminated against implies the inability of other individuals to exercise choice or discernment. You cannot compel a person to forfeit their ability to discern and choose.

    Discrimination happens every day in a multitude of varying degrees and ways. When I refuse to go on a date with an unattractive woman I am discriminating against her on the basis that she is ugly. She has no right to forcibly submit me to her unpleasant appearance anymore than I have a right to forcibly submit her to my tiny penis. Discrimination is a fact of life and there is no right to be free of it.
    We aren't speaking of just any kind or degree of generic discrimination in the colloquial sense.

    An employer, not a single man.
    An employee, not a prospective date.
    Labor code and case-law, not romance.
    A federally protected class, not attractiveness.

    My argument cannot be accurately interpreted to support being free from any and all discrimination of any kind in toto. That is not something I support and that is not something I have argued in favor of, ever.

    My argument concerns what people in specific rolls can and cannot do while in those specific rolls under penalty of civil or criminal action.

    ***
    You argue that when a person is under threat of loss of income for voting a certain way, that that person retains the right to vote their conscience free from said threat of loss of income. You therefore presented a contradictory argument and I cannot accept it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I've always understood that rights are not absolute. Putting someone in prison is a violation of one's rights, but I would never claim that imprisonment is inherently unconstitutional. One may forfeit their rights, but only when they've conceivably violated the rights of others, that's what laws are supposed to do, uphold the Constitution.
    Corporate officers, agents and representative do not enjoy the full set of rights afforded private persons precisely because a corporate officer, agent or representative is not a private person while in that role.

    The individual forfeits their personal right to discriminate against religion when the company enters into a binding employment contract with another party.

    This is demonstrated when civil action is taken, as any such civil action sues the company, not the private individual. The private individual is addressed as an agent of the company, not as a private person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    In your scenario no rights have been violated, thus anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional since they serve no relevant purpose in upholding or protecting an individual's rights.
    My scenario? I didn't post the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Not "you" specifically, although the question does apply tangentially to "you". I should have been more specific.

    Who are "you" (anti-discrimination law proponents) to tell "me" (private business owners) otherwise?
    We are The People whom the Constitution serves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    It's like that one song...

    Who are you?
    Who, who, who, who?
    Who are you?
    Who, who, who, who?
    Who are you?

    You probably though Roger Daltrey was talking specifically to you… ego maniac!
    Never heard of it, sorry.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •