1st - I have a Juris Doctorate from Northwestern University. I'm happy with my education. 2nd - almost everything you said about the law is completely wrong. FREE SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT ACTION? Are you nuts? A part of the problem seems to be that your mind is stuck back before the Civil Rights Act and laws that make political contributions free speech. When your history class got to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, etc you must have already quit school. You cannot deny anyone a job, private or public, because of their race, creed, sex, religion, disability, etc. I take that back - in some states you can still legally deny jobs to gays and LGBT status. Are people denied jobs for those reasons all of the time? Yep. Do the deniers let anyone know the true reason for the denial? No. Why? Because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I can deny Hitler boy a job. I can deny someone with blue hair a job. I can deny anyone a job. I'd just better be careful not to give the real reasons if it's a "protected class". (BTW - I don't trust online reviews. There are now companies hired to simply write good reviews for their customers without ever seeing the product or service).
In your world it would be total chaos. The grocery store clerk would refuse to check out a black guy, McDonalds wouldn't serve the guy with the Trump button (guess if I'd be the cashier or Trump button woman?,), a lawyer would refuse to be appointed to represent someone who's shirt said "I Love Atheists", a Mormon would be thrown out of a shopping mall, and on and on and on.....
The blacklist was an underground secret that was just a well known one. You can't be denied a job because of your political affiliation unless that affiliation goes right to the heart of the job; like a former Nazi guard taking people for tours at a concentration camp. During the time of the blacklist it was all about whispers and innuendo (by the way, you assume that there were many Hollywood communists. Do some research.)It's the old "If you tell them I didn't hire you because of the blacklist thing I'll deny it". Of course you'll deny it. This wasn't done out in the open, as it may appear to have been done as we look back.
You have no understanding of the constitution. Since it's black history month let's do this. Why did students sit at lunch counters, refuse to use buses, not shop at white stores, etc? They had a constitutional right to be served by PRIVATE store owners and by everyone else - private places- that served whites. If you walk into a restaurant and announce to the waitress that you are a communist or a Stalinist or whatever, people will look up at you, assess whether you are there to do harm, and then go back to eating. If you still want to eat there you can't be refused if you don't pose an eminent danger. I have to sit and eat dinner with an idiot behind me who has a pistol on his belt. Many states have chosen to put me in that position. I'll take the Hitler button boy any day.
As we know now, financial contributions are free speech. If I hear about the Citizen's United case one more time my head will explode. That extended the free speech right that individuals HAVE ALWAYS HAD to corporations for the purpose of political contributions.
I don't know the entire Firefox story, and neither do you because you can't be fired for making a political contribution within the facts you mentioned. If so you would certainly win if you sued to get your job back. Maybe the guy didn't want his job back. A political contribution, by anyone, is free speech.
Here's your big problem: Just about everything you are saying is stuff that goes on "underground". The blacklist wasn't legal. You couldn't refuse someone a job because of their political affiliation. That's why there was a need for a blacklist. Just the sound of it is covert. There is no one real "Blacklist." It was all rumors, innuendo, secret phone calls, and a few who didn't waiver against the unconstitutional hearings that took their livelihoods (ILLEGALLY). You were not told to your face that you weren't being hired because of your religious affiliation. If a potential hirer was being completely candid they might say that quietly, and would never admit they made the decision for that reason when in public. The entire incredibly sad history was because so much of this was done with winks and nods. When you didn't get a job you knew why. No one said - "No way, you're on the blacklist."
You cannot discriminate against someone because you believe, very strongly in your case, that the political party they belong to is a horrendous one. IT'S A FREE FREAKIN COUNTRY! As for Hitler grass cutter: (1)You assume I'm not a white supremacist, (2)Hitler's dead; (3)as long as he does a good job I don't care if he sings the national Nazi anthem (if there is something like that) while he cuts the lawn. How about if he and his fellow NAZI friends go sit at a lunch counter and the private company that owns the lunch counter refuses to serve them because they are NAZIs? Do you have any idea how impossible your idea would be if it were the law? Just exchange race discrimination, plug in religious discrimination, and start from there. Watch some Black History Month documentaries. Google the stories of black protests at private places - the lunch counter protests are very interesting and very brave and very simply prove that you are very wrong.
Now, normally I get into these things and try to have civil conversations with folks. However, I see at least a few red flags that tell me trying to post any further responses to you will be a complete (and very long) waste of time.
1. You have no basic understanding of the Constitution. I'm not going to teach it to you unless I get paid for my tutoring. What you might want to do there is to look at Congressman Paul Ryan's original stand on the Civil Rights Act. It expanded non-discriminatory policies to private entities. Ryan wanted private (i.e. non-governmental) entities to be able to decide for themselves whether or not to serve blacks ( you may exchange "blacks" for religions, sexes, LGBT, and all persons because of race, beliefs, etc). Ryan still has trouble wiggling out of that opinion he gave many years ago. It didn't win the day but you seem to believe that it did.
2. Your smug tone will only get more smug; as mine got smug in replying to you. (Believe me, I've toned down much of what I wanted to say because you lack even a fundamental understanding of most of what you wrote about. Kids, stay in school.)
3. Your didn't address anything about McCarthy, which was pretty much the entire topic of my post.
reply
share
irvberg2002
9 years ago
My JD is from NYU '71. I assumed from your posting that you were legally uneducated because you assumed that the First Amendment free speech guarantee applied to non-governmental action, so that an individual denied a job or terminated therefrom, by a private employer on account of his expressed political or social beliefs had a valid cause of action against that employer. Therefore, if I find out (or even mistakenly believe) that my landscaper is a Nazi sympathizer I could not terminate his employment without exposing myself legally. If I heard him sing the Nazi anthem (the Horst Wessel Lied) I would fire him without fear of being sued. You, of course may be sufficiently broad minded not to do so. But you are not compelled to refrain from doing so, even if he hummed the Horst Wessel Lied so nicely that you enjoyed listening to it. Now, I did not intend to be smug or to insult you in my posting; I merely assumed you were not legally educated, which most people, including those well educated in other fields and intelligent, are not. That was the only point of my posting; I did not choose to enter into a debate about Joseph McCarthy, about whom many people who share my general present political views regard as someone who brought discredit on the cause of anti-Communism. I am more puzzled now about what I believe to be an elementary error in your apparent conviction that someone who is denied a job, or fired from it, by a nongovernmental employer, because of his political or social beliefs, has a valid cause of action against that employer on the basis of the First Amendment free speech guarantee. If you are still of that belief I would really be interested in learning of any authority that supports it. BTW, an interesting factoid about Trumbo's Communist politics concerns the first use of the Smith Act, which held it criminal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, was not against the members of the CP, but against a group of Trotskyists (bitter enemies of the CP who regarded themselves as the true Communists) in Minnesota, and guess who applauded that use? The CP.
reply
share
ddariced1958
9 years ago
After reading your response I have to believe you are a troll. Or you should ask NYU for your money back.
I'll try again, if only for those who you are providing total misinformation. They may choose not pursue their rights if they read your posts and are duped into thinking that they have no rights against a private employer. An individual terminated or denied a job, by a private employer, on account of her or his expressed political or social beliefs, HAS a valid cause against his or her employer.
The only exception would be if that person used the time that he or she was supposed to be working to, in some way, infringe on others' or practice the religion during work time. The Nazi guy is certainly not the norm. One person needing to hire one person. He's still protected but I seriously doubt that he would have the means, time, or actually give a crap if you refused him work because of his political beliefs. You would just further his belief that people are afraid of Nazis. He'd like that.
Of course you intended to be smug - just as you intend to be insulting in the post I'm responding to. I don't know why you would even say you aren't doing those things. God forbid if you talk to everyone like this. At least I admit when I'm being snarky.
So now we know that the reason that you posted was incredibly misguided because the major point you want to make is completely wrong. The rest of your post is useless. You don't do your homework and you just spout off. That's not what I was taught to do. I looked up the Mozilla guy. Everyone is free to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, no one is free from any consequences that may arise from it. Mozilla could not legally fire the new CEO for his political contribution to an unpopular cause. (I believe he did more than just give a contribution. It seems he was politically active on that issue in other ways.) However, by exercising his free speech rights he caused a huge army of people on the Internet to rise up and start a movement to have everyone remove Firefox from their computers. BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SIMPLY BE FIRED FOR HIS BELIEFS, he resigned. The protests and litigation would be long, expensive, and he'd lose.
Employers learn, after they get sued, that from now on they had better not give the real reason for the hiring or firing decision. The Americans with Disabilities Act is clear, and it is the latest extension of the laws that prevent hiring and firing of "protected classes". I invite anyone to look that term up to find out the state of the laws which employers (private and public) must follow. That's your huge mistake. You don't understand any law about protected classes. You don't understand that those laws include private employers.
Are you not aware of the cases where women who wear the headwear required by their religion, or men who have facial hair required by their religion (there are a million of these types of cases for all the protected classes that go back to the 60s, but the Muslim cases are the latest) get fired, and after suing, regain their jobs (and some $$)? They win their cases.
Communism is legal. It always has been. A private employer has to respect that. Do I have to do the story of why the pilgrims came here in the 1st place? Again, you did not read the Civil Rights Act and the laws that followed. I don't know what kind of law you practice but you certainly have never come near this field. Political beliefs are free speech issues.
I'm thrilled that you know the official Nazi song. Now go learn about who you can and can't hire and fire; including what is legal termination and what is not. If you ever get in the position to hire someone I hope that you tell them it is because of their religious affiliation. I can only pray that there is a witness. It's time for you to hit the law library.
reply
share
ddariced1958
9 years ago
Let's just finish this up. Google search of whether private employers can refuse to hire Muslims. I knew I'd get to the EEOC. I only use Muslims because it seems that they have become the latest scapegoats for everything. I figure that subject is most compelling. If it applies to those folks it has to apply to others, right? The following speaks for itself. I did make one error - and it goes back to the very 1st thing that was said. There must be 15 or more employees. So you can tell a Nazi to take a hike because of his beliefs. I missed that one.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers with at least 15 employees (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [Protected class - disabilities are also in said class]. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits among other things:
•disparate treatment based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted to prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ);
•denial of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer;
•workplace or job segregation based on religion;
•workplace harassment based on religion;
•retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO proceeding, or for opposing discrimination.
There may be state or local laws in your jurisdiction that have protections that are parallel to or broader than those in Title VII.
That is just one portion of Title VII. Now I really am done. People - fight for your rights (and party too). And please use the 5th Amendment more. Thank You.
reply
share
irvberg2002
9 years ago
I practiced civil litigation for over thirty years, including Title VII cases and I am very familiar with the law. There is absolutely nothing in your verbose outpouring that addresses the point I raised in my original posting, i.e., that there is no legal bar to discriminating in employment on the basis of someone's political beliefs. All your blather about race, color, religion, sex and national origin is completely irrelevant to that point. If you had an employer as a client and advised him that Title VII prevented him from denying employment to someone who is an admirer of Hitler you would be acting on the basis of your own views, not on the basis of the law. As for Mozilla, you know very well that the CEO did not resign voluntarily - he was forced to do so and your comments about that (horrors, he did more than just make a financial contribution!) reveal that while you may have sympathy for Nazis, anything goes when it comes to someone who disagrees with you about same sex marriage. You are a fine example of the totalitarian leftist, and that's why you have such a warm spot in your heart for the henchmen of the mass murderer Stalin.
reply
share
shide_85
9 years ago
You are a fine example of the totalitarian leftist, and that's why you have such a warm spot in your heart for the henchmen of the mass murderer Stalin.
Saw this near the end and reacted - please explain to me how leftists can be anything but totalitarian..?
Democracy is a totalitarian state, you have rule by the majority and every Nation state is absolutely inclusive for their polities.
This is just weird reasoning, I prefer the rule of many for the majority good than the tyranny of the few for the good of the few. That does however not make me belive that Stalin or Lenin acted in right.
kathiehansen: Tell us what your think about the CEO of Mozilla being forced from his job because of his opposition to same sex marriage.
It's not for me but I hope you don't mind a third perspective?
In todays age of Fascism the option is to vote with your voice or your feet (classical voice/exit and the informed/enlightened consumer). Though, when fascism rules the socio-economic segregation increses, that makes it hard to "vote" with your feets (which is what you are supposed to do in a fascistic society), luckily we are not fully there yet. So people can still voice their concerns and be heard because it impacts the reality of the companies on different markets. Universiality is good, an egalitarian society means equality under law and is something positive for those who support rule under law.
So from a political and market-economical perspective i find it good. From a social-democratic perspective where you have a wellfare state which secures the greater good through democracy it would be bad (unless publically infringing on others negative rights - aka general hate speech) as every person is freely allowed to voice their opinion and it is secured under law.
[EDIT] And btw which account is
kathiehansen's?
Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.
reply
share
ddariced1958
9 years ago
I'm back. shide_85 I agree with your well thought out post.
I'm concerned that someone who reads posts by an attorney who claims to be very knowledgeable about discrimination based on political affiliation might make employment decisions based on broad statements in the attorney's posts. I have not reread all of the posts but my recollection is that no exceptions to this discrimination "rule" were mentioned.
There are a number of ways that many people are protected. Federal employees can't be discriminated against because of their political affiliations, nor can most public employees. A few states have laws preventing the discrimination. There are many cities and counties that have such laws. Many union contracts require no discrimination by the employer. Then it gets complicated. Examples of workplace situations: your job status may or may not be affected because of off work political activity (this is a popular one); you can't be discriminated against because of who you vote for; you may or may not be discriminated against for running for public office. The big problem comes in when you discuss your beliefs at a private workplace (but not all such workplaces). You can spend a lot of time imagining all types of situations and there are thousands of federal case law decisions deciding those unique questions.
My icon picture is of John Garfield. To many he was James Dean, Marlon Brando and that type before those guys came along. He had incredible talent. In front of the Hollywood HUAC, which was only formed to promote the careers of politicians, he was named by some as a Communist. He had worked with some people who were named Communists. He made anti-Nazi movies, gangster pictures, American war hero movies, etc. He refused to name names, which was his right and is not a crime. His studio told him that he had better give names and they told him who to name. They also wrote an article attributed to him claiming that he had been "duped" by Communists. A few days before he was set to go testify again, and state the names that he was told to state, he died of a "heart attack". He was 39.
reply
share
roreyking
9 years ago
A few days before [John Garfield] was set to go testify again, and state the names that he was told to state, he died of a "heart attack".
You're implying Garfield was assassinated. Do you really mean to say that?
reply
share
ddariced1958
9 years ago
I signed on to apologize for not getting back to you sooner, and also to reply to whatever you had posted. I was in an insane trial that blew up and lasted a long time. As I think I mentioned I have always practiced criminal law. I send civil cases to civil attorneys (which, in at least one respect, you are not.) I guess you are retired and your age may play a part in your beliefs. I've seen that before. Sometimes people commit to certain beliefs at a certain age and then the mind closes while the world progresses. Somehow I deleted the email I got from IMDB and I forgot which board we were on because I remembered that we were many pages in. I'm sure that you understand why I didn't go through every post in every board. I then found a way to locate my posts. I wrote to apologize for my ignorance. I had confused race that is also religion and so I was thinking of Muslims and Jews, etc. Somehow I got my head stuck on that small part of this subject. Right after your post I did some research and discovered that only 12 states have laws against discrimination based on political beliefs.
So I do apologize for wasting your time (except for those 12 states). The funny thing is that had I seen this last post I wouldn't have wasted time in responding. A little time away from this subject has allowed me to educate myself (and has allowed you to fly your true colors). I find that studying a subject works better than just throwing out awful slurs. I did research the Mozilla case and I stand by what I wrote because it is based on research from sites that I believe to be impartial.
Of course I am greatly distressed by your idea that I have sympathy for Nazis. Nothing that I've writing would lead anyone else to come close to seeing that in any of my posts. The same for Stalin. People who don't have a good responsive argument always go to the biggest extreme insult: Hitler and Nazis. I didn't know that we were discussing Fascism but that is required of you in order to bring up Nazis and push your unjustified outrage toward me. I'm certainly not a totalitarian leftist. Sanders is to the left of me. I've never been a Communist nor considered joining their party. My Grandmother actively worked to find Communists. Seems she found them everywhere; but as in almost every case the follow up provided no proof of illegality. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were about it. (As an aside, I am always interested in finding hypocrites. As you probably know Roy Cohn was Senator McCarthy's attorney. They managed to slur an active soldier as being gay. Cohn turned out to be gay and unfortunately died from a horrible disease. I'd wish that on no one.)
The point is, and has always been, that it is legal in this country to hold any political beliefs one might hold without them being unjustly prosecuted. It is obviously still happening today. There are a number of different ways to protest someone else's beliefs and actions without prosecuting and jailing them. There was never any proof that Trumbo did anything illegal.
Unreasonable and unproven fear, as I see within your post and most tellingly within yourself, causes people and governments to do awful things. "Trumbo" shows that we disregarded the Constitution. It did not show the portion of the history of HUAC which also disregarded the 5th Amendment. Those facts are true no matter what anyone's beliefs are. Fear is playing a huge part at this very time in our country's presidential elections. It is incredibly dangerous. We need to learn from our past.
I've said all there is to say. If others want to respond to this that is their right. I won't be coming back here.
I'm sure that you'll understand when I don't reply to any of your further posts. I have no interest in reading anything else that you have to "spew". You've really revealed your true self. Had I known the hate you have inside I would have never participated in this or any discussion with you.
reply
share