Berkeley Hot Dog Stand Fires Cook Seen At Charlottesville Protest

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: xuenchen

joy so now we get a snowflake over reaction to someone exercising their constitutional rights.

Unless he committed a crime while there, or tried to say he was representing the company he worked for, he should not be fired.

Murdering a woman with your car is a "snowflake over reaction".

Firing a Nazi sympathizer is just smart business.

Thanks for making my point.

So you know for 100% verified fact that this guy went?

the entire thing is sadly ironic.

Your post I was responding to wasn't about whether or not he was there; it was about you calling the employer a snowflake for firing somebody because he was exercising his constitutional right to be a Nazi.

again thank you for proving my point, you read into it what you wanted to see, did not ask clarification just commented and declared victory.

What I saw was what you wrote which is what I responded to.

Your questioning of identity was on a different post of yours and had nothing to do with your statement that firing a Nazi is a "snowflake overreaction".

Guess there are still a few folks that simply can't grasp the 14th.

How sad.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, here they do things like that all the time. Trading shifts with people is still common.

But they probably only have two people who work the stand, I do not know if the employer has lots of these stands, maybe it just shut down while the guy was gone. Maybe the other shift went double. There was not enough information in that article to find out what really happened.

I think it is safe to assume the shift was covered until something else is mentioned. He wasn't in trouble until he returned, so whatever he did the boss was ok with it. It wasn't until he found out what he was doing that he was fired.

a reply to: DJMSN

Also since you don't know me from Adam it is fair for you to not trust me but again it is a discussion board not a place to fight or disparage one another so why not welcome questions and perhaps learn from one another. We have enough hatred to fight as it is and if we all do it together instead of at each other's throats, it will be easier to fight the intolerance and hatred that exists.

Sorry amigo if this doesn't apply to you but it is the time to fight when Nazis march in the streets of America. I served and I have relatives that died fighting what is apparently happening with the overt racism and white nationalism, totally against the American Constitution and the bill or rights. I take my oath when I joined the military seriously.

originally posted by: neo96
Guess there are still a few folks that simply can't grasp the 14th.

How sad.

Oh we grasp it. It's just funny how you don't and never have had a problem with at will employment until this nazi was fired for being a nazi.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope.

First yall say jobs are RIGHTS.

Then you say they are conditional.

And on the condition a person may be employed ONLY if they agree with leftist ideology.

Hate to break it to you.

DOESN'T work that way.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: xuenchen

joy so now we get a snowflake over reaction to someone exercising their constitutional rights.

Unless he committed a crime while there, or tried to say he was representing the company he worked for, he should not be fired.

Murdering a woman with your car is a "snowflake over reaction".

Firing a Nazi sympathizer is just smart business.

Thanks for making my point.

So you know for 100% verified fact that this guy went?

the entire thing is sadly ironic.

Your post I was responding to wasn't about whether or not he was there; it was about you calling the employer a snowflake for firing somebody because he was exercising his constitutional right to be a Nazi.

again thank you for proving my point, you read into it what you wanted to see, did not ask clarification just commented and declared victory.

What I saw was what you wrote which is what I responded to.

Your questioning of identity was on a different post of yours and had nothing to do with your statement that firing a Nazi is a "snowflake overreaction".

So the snow flake over reaction could not have been directed at doxing him?

Wow thanks for telling me what I am thinking, I do not know what I would do without you.

a reply to: neo96

I don't know what you are talking about. Have you never heard of at will employment before? It's not anything new and has been around for a LONG time.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: xuenchen

joy so now we get a snowflake over reaction to someone exercising their constitutional rights.

Unless he committed a crime while there, or tried to say he was representing the company he worked for, he should not be fired.

Murdering a woman with your car is a "snowflake over reaction".

Firing a Nazi sympathizer is just smart business.

Thanks for making my point.

So you know for 100% verified fact that this guy went?

the entire thing is sadly ironic.

Your post I was responding to wasn't about whether or not he was there; it was about you calling the employer a snowflake for firing somebody because he was exercising his constitutional right to be a Nazi.

again thank you for proving my point, you read into it what you wanted to see, did not ask clarification just commented and declared victory.

What I saw was what you wrote which is what I responded to.

Your questioning of identity was on a different post of yours and had nothing to do with your statement that firing a Nazi is a "snowflake overreaction".

So the snow flake over reaction could not have been directed at doxing him?

Wow thanks for telling me what I am thinking, I do not know what I would do without you.

So you think the snowflake overreaction was in identifying him?

How does that change my point?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Have you never heard of at will employment before?

Except when that will employment comes to blacks, and gays then 'work at will' is completely unacceptable.

Even though nazism is nothing more than political ideology which is protected under the first and fourthteen amendments

Which 'work at will' moot.

a reply to: Abysha

you said I called the employer a snowflake, you jumped to conclusions about my post and ran with it.

verifying my original point about snowflake over reactions.

originally posted by: neo96
Them anti discrimination LAWS include nazis.

Uh, no, they don't.

Anti-discrimination law refers to the law on the right of people to be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment, in consumer transactions, and in political participation people must be dealt with on an equal basis regardless of economic status, sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression/dysphoria, sex characteristics, religious, creed,or individual political opinions.

That's just a general overview of anti-discrimination laws around the world and not specific to the United States.

Watch as a Socialist gets fired for being a Socialist:

"The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment." Source

originally posted by: aliensanonymous
Employers have the upper hand over employees in Cali.

Every state except Montana is 'at will', it's not just California.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Abysha

you said I called the employer a snowflake, you jumped to conclusions about my post and ran with it.

verifying my original point about snowflake over reactions.

Oh my word. This is what you said.

joy so now we get a snowflake over reaction to someone exercising their constitutional rights. 

Unless he committed a crime while there, or tried to say he was representing the company he worked for, he should not be fired.

Quit playing dumb.

This innocent act when defending Nazis on this site isn't fooling anybody other than other apologists.

a reply to: neo96

Can you honestly not see how those two things aren't the same thing?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: aliensanonymous
Employers have the upper hand over employees in Cali.

Every state except Montana is 'at will', it's not just California.

Yes and it takes an Act of God to fire someone in Montana, and even he may need the written consent of Congress.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, here they do things like that all the time. Trading shifts with people is still common.

But they probably only have two people who work the stand, I do not know if the employer has lots of these stands, maybe it just shut down while the guy was gone. Maybe the other shift went double. There was not enough information in that article to find out what really happened.

I think it is safe to assume the shift was covered until something else is mentioned. He wasn't in trouble until he returned, so whatever he did the boss was ok with it. It wasn't until he found out what he was doing that he was fired.

Evidently the guy was let go because his employer did not like what he had done. He actually printed a sign that stated this and displayed it. I looked at some other sources and found the employer fired him for his participation, not his absence. I am not so sure that that is legal to fire someone for that, but the employer can do it, he will just probably have to pay extra on unemployment because it was not a good reason. You can usually let an employee go for anything,

If I was going to leave an employee go, I sure would not use that reason. I would fire him for something that was less controvercial. What an employee does on their own time is their business as long as it is legal. It does not mean you have to keep them working for you though, just let them go.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Uh, no, they don't.

Well then it's PERFECTLY acceptable to FIRE everyone who attended BLM rallies. and that work for UC Berkeley.

After all.

“It’s not a First Amendment issue,” she said. “Remember, that only protects you from actions by the government based on your speech. It doesn’t protect you from actions by your private employer. It’s also probably not a discrimination issue, because going to a rally like this, participating like this, doesn’t make you a member of a protected class.”

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

How bout them apples.

originally posted by: neo96
Well then it's PERFECTLY acceptable to FIRE everyone who attended BLM rallies. and that work for UC Berkeley.

UC Berkeley is a government institution. You are aware that the 'C' in 'UC' means 'California', right? If it were a private college they could fire them for wearing purple hats.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Can you honestly not see how those two things aren't the same thing?

I am asking myself why people are honestly ignoring the bold in this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since they are nazis equal protection for people we don't like don't matter for SNIP.

Since it's the entire IDEAL behind that LAW.