I have a question. When did "gender neutral housing" become part of the radical homosexual agenda? In fact that doesn't even make sense. Wouldn't radical homosexual want to have dorms full of horny college age boys so they would be tempted to "experiment" with each other?
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
hardcore Christians, ahh, my favourite people to piss off.
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
have you watched the video? satan's pawn is one of the least offensive things this fellow is being called.
For instance, Nazi and Racist are, while not definitively defined, much easier cases to prove. As in, they are things that there is no evidence this man has any association with.
Further, "satan's pawn" has a damaging effect on his stance in the community especially among christians who might accidently find this blog. It becomes a defimation suit at that point, given the onus would be on Shirvel to prove his assertion, for which there would be no judicially reliable evidence.
so, let me get this straight, you don't think someone's behaviour becomes unbecomming of holding a public office until they overtly violate the law on work time? [sic, indeed!]
you do realize that nobody gives 2 shits that this moron is saying what he is, but rather that he is doing so while holding an office WHICH IS DIRECTLY RESPOSIBLE FOR THE EQUAL DISSEMINATION OF JUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC.
a) his own boss, the attorney general, said he was bullying this man using technology.
b) the interviews clearly state that he engages in more than just keeping a single blog. While the blog is the main thing, it is even admitted by Shirvel himself that he is posting slanderous things about this student on places other than his blog (he says message boards).
c) religious or political speech does not protect you from litigation. Else all criminal conspiracies would never get charged. Further, freedom of speech does not apply to crime.
d) you seem to, again, be (deliberatly?) confusing the idea that Shirvel commited illegal action with the fact that he is being accuesed of commiting action unbecomming of someone employed in the office of the autourney general.
e) he used loop-holes in legislation that doesn't exist?
a) the supreme court of your country thinks differently
b) this isn't a freedom of speech issue, nobody wants to deny him the right to be a biggot, they are just saying he can't hold an office representing the concept of equality before the law while behaving in a way that it is indisputable he will not provide that service to homosexuals
c) even if this were a freedom of speech issue, there is at least an argument that his freedom of speech does not superceed the right of homosexuals to get fair representation by the state
d) to break this down into barn yard analogies, you are arguing that the fox should indeed be allowed to gurad the chicken coop, because it is against the rights of the fox to refues him employment until after he has, predictably (in fact, with complete foreknowledge of how foxes behave in situations with chickens), murdered the chickens.
lol, so let me guess, you also wouldn't have a problem with political figures belonging to fascist organizations, or police officers belonging to racist organizations, or politicians also sitting on the boards of companies bidding for government contracts?
do you not believe in the concept of "conflict of interests"?
if you actually think that your constitution protects this guy, I couldn't think of a better reason why the constitution doesn't represent a good form of governance in the modern world. There is no risk to free speech from this issue at all. Nobody is saying private citizens shouldn't be allowed to do things.
right, because the issue here is that people think Shirvell is a criminal, and not that he is too immature to hold an office and has an obvious prejudice that cannot help but influence his stance toward homosexuals as individuals. This last part being most important because it is his specific job description to provide equal legal representation to all people, regardless of sexual orientation, though I don't have a problem with state employees being reprimanded for behaviour they should have grown out of by third grade.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:21 PM
Yes and it seems the most offensive or at least intended to be the most offensive.
Hyperbole for the sake of a "political" point (BTW, that's in the video), Nazi and racist in actions/ideals (that's how he justifies it), etc. Still, for Andrew, Pawn of Satan is probably the most offensive and something he genuinely means. Do you think Peach cries herself to sleep every time someone calls her a Nazi for closing a thread that was inappropriately created? His nazi comments are very non-sequitor to begin with. They are lame as hell. In fact, I have no idea where this ultra-conservative idea came from that homsexuals are racist nazis...but it is definitely not the first time I've heard it (I live in Oklahoma... )
If you're familiar with the ultra-conservative types, even if a person does not outwardly acknowledge or even try to do the work of Satan, that doesn't mean that aren't doing the work of Satan to the conservatard.
And, if there are any ultra-conservative Christians out there that come across his blog, they'd agree with Andrew quite swiftly. Even if they didn't run across the blog and heard of the fella, they'd still say shit like, "That young man is doing the work of the devil." You know how many times I've heard that last line?
And, yeah, there would be "evidence" in that he can cite his scriptures. Then if they try to push it further, he can counter sue for an infringement on his political and religious speech.
He's not elected, he's appointed. Let's get that clear.
Also, he's fine. And, let's get another thing clear: he's not doing ANYTHING illegal. Your wording is a bit off, there.
And, since when is hate becoming of anyone from anywhere? That's a slippery slope and I'll cover that at the end.
We need to get another thing clear:
As soon as his hate spills over into his job (You know, a case he is working on is not handled properly, not anything else that you are trying to think of which doesn't apply), his boss has probable cause to fire him. There's also the problem of assigning lawyers to cases: what kind of dumbass boss would you have to be to assign Andrew to a case covering the prosecution of a homosexual? If the DA is short-handed and Andrew is the only option, Andrew can either chose to be insubordinate and lose his job OR he can do standard quality work on that case and keep his job. Just take a guess at which option that a**hole would take?
Then why hasn't he fired him or prosecuted him (he's the ****in' DA...you can do that, n'stuff)? Oh, that's right, because he's not actually bullying him in any illegal way.
I did not see that in the video. I watched the whole thing. Unless Andrew is posting on the student's websites/facebook page, it is not cyber bullying. He has to follow him around to his own "stomping grounds" and harass him there in order for it to be cyber bullying. Mr. Cooper took that cyber bullying quotes out of context, which is something news reporters do both ignorantly and willfully. If he posts something on a message board that that dude participates in and someone there, including the student, asks him to stop, that's the end. If he continues, that's harassment and the cyber bullying law can be applied.
Glad we cleared up that it is not criminal, then, right? (that was done several posts ago)
And what you're talking about, conspiracy to commit a criminal offense, is certainly not the case. You've got only cyber bullying and, at that, it's a very weak argument.
Yet, you've harped on the illegality of his actions multiple times, now.
And you've missed the point that his actions must be illegal or unethical (towards cases he is working on) when they are done outside of the office. If he leaves work completely out of his actions, there is no legal leg to stand on. Yes, firing an employee is a legal matter and there's shit loads of legislation in each state and at the federal level. You think that Andrew and his boss haven't thought about that? (they are both lawyers)
He is doing something illegal that isn't protected by the US constitution, is not legally protected from his state's employment laws, and his boss is going to fire him based on legally defined ethics behavior for government employees?
The Supreme Court of my country does not.
Freedom of Speech is the issue. And until he actually does something that is as you describe, while at work, then you have a legal leg to stand on. It hasn't happened and it most likely won't happen.
That's rather irrelevant considering no such situation has come up. Don't you think his boss would love to fire him over such a thing? (If I were the DA, I would look for any reason to fire him..and as a lawyer, I would certainly be very careful about it.)
Your analogy fails in that your chickens in the coop would equate to every last person prosecuted would have to be a homosexual acting as the student body president of that specific university (I got that from the video, too).
And, yeah, he would have to do something wrong with his job in order to be fired. You seem to think that this is an "at-will" employment agreement.
What do you think will happen if his employer (the DA) fires him and gives the reason that he didn't like his outside of work activities? You do know that the termination of his employment would be rather explicitly illegal and falls under discrimination, right? Yes, you can discriminate against a person based on their beliefs...even if those believes are retarded and asinine.
Let's make sure we make our comparisons accurate...
If you list anything, they all have to be appointed, not publicaly elected. Scratch any publicly elected officials from your list.
They also have to start these actions after employment, too. So scratch having knowledge before-hand.
They also cannot belong to a known organization that illegally discriminates, so scratch that from your list. (main KKK org. still works, though...of which Andrew is not a part of...he accused the student of that.)
Politicians sitting on the boards of companies bidding for government contracts is illegal and cannot really be done. On top of that, if it is done, it is criminal. On top of that if they do have a future or present vested interest the ethics committee is to see that it doesn't happen. On top of that, if they have a future vested interest with an organization that they sat on a contract committee for, they have to be out of public office for at least 2 years. How do I know all of this? Simple, Haliburton scandal.
So what do we have left from your examples?
Police belonging to legal, but bigoted, organizations; and political figures expressing their political philosophies and beliefs? You bet I'd support their right to do those things and as soon as they did something illegal or legally unethical (specifically defined in ethics laws as wrong), they lose the rights to their jobs and have to forfeit their employment.
You want to talk about the "risk" of hiring that person and that does not translate to this topic. The risk occurred after his employment with the DA and only in states that have "at-will" provisions can you fire the douche.
I certainly do. So there was a case that clearly showed a conflict of interest?
If that's the case, why hasn't the DA fired his ass? Shouldn't the DA fall under scrutiny for that?
Also, if that's the case, then everything I said is still right, but doesn't apply to Andrew and I'm, therefore, wrong.
Yeah, and "thank the Lord" that the constitution DOES protect this guy's outside of work "political speech."
This is why you and I aren't lawyers because neither of us think this douche should be doing what he's doing. We ONLY differ in that I think he has nested himself into legal safe-zone.
You certainly have addressed that (legality) on multiple levels. You can't have your cake and eat it to, man.
If you don't think his actions were cyber bullying (Cause you don't think it's a legal matter) then your entire argument ends there and we can move on. Until his boss has LEGAL reasons to fire him while NOT illegally firing him (cause it is walking a fine line of discrimination), he should remain employed. Whether or not you and I think it's unbecoming means absolutely jack shit (I personally think he should resign and open up a private practice of criminal defense cause the transition is much easier from prosecution to defense...from what I hear). I do tons of stuff that is unbecoming of my job: I fart at make comments about how awesome it was or how stinky it is, I make jokes that could sometimes make a trucker blush, and I make fun of all sorts of political figures. So I should be fired because it is unbecoming? Luckily, we don't live in a fascist state, right? I mean, LUCKILY. That's a pretty big deal to me.
Good. I hope that the DA has a legal leg to stand on because that type of douche pisses me off.
The first a amendment does not provide magical blanket protection of everything you say. The old "fire in a crowded theater" clause, crushingly fascist though it may be, is widely accepted in law.
In this case he is unarguably engaging in libel and pretty clearly harassing this young man. I don't see how he claim it as "political speech" either, the kid isn't a public figure he's the figurehead leader of a student council.
Are you figure that is expected to represent your place of business to the public? If so you probably can and eventually will be fired for that behavior.
Of course you live in the US so you can be fired for shits-and-giggles.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Oct 7th, 2010 at 12:23 AM
do you really think it is reasonable to wait until he, which he will do if the circumstance arises, abuses the legal rights of a homosexual individual?
Like, if you don't see a role for the state in preserving legal equality between citizens, what could you possibly see its role as? sit back and collect taxes like the mafia?
What? Weren't you going on and on about why it would be unethical to fire him? And now you're saying you'd do it in his position?
He already WAS kicked out, before this thread was even made. Had been so for a week. So the idea that he would have been made a martyr was kind of silly... obviously, it would have happened by now.
Doesn't my post clearly indicate that I would be looking for a reason to fire him?
It would be unethical and possibly illegal to fire him without an ethical reason because it is not an at-will agreement and he wasn't elected, which is what I covered in that post you quoted that from.
I thought my distaste for Andew's actions was rather apparant. Was it not strong enough?
I did not know that (the vid doesn't have that in it, does it?) and, also, he hasn't been fired yet because the DA is looking for that reason, just like I suggested cause he's smart and doing things carefully. If and when the investigation turns up jack sh*t, then the DA has to reinstate him in the hopes he screws up. If they find something that can stick, that'd be awesome.
You're correct; it pretty much boils down to that.
Yes, it is reasonable to wait until he steps out of line especially if his refernces checked out during the hiring process. How in the h*ll would the DA office know that he was a bigot unless they specifically asked for what he was a bigot on? (I ended my sentence in a preposition...imma be sued ) Also, you can't fire someone for their hate speech if they do it wholly outside of work.
And, again, you (not you, specifically, ambiguous "you") have to PROVE his outside actions are actually taking place while at work or handling a case. If they don't, then you can't fire him unless you want to be sued for discrimination and violation of his first amendment rights.
If we could just get the DA to confirm what I'm saying...jeez!
I'm quite sure the DA would be in full agreement with me. What make sense to you (and is something I agree with), does not bode well, legally.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Oct 7th, 2010 at 05:09 AM
This was covered, already, and does not apply to Andrew's case. It's a strawman. I don't know who started and why, though...I can't be arsed to go back and look through the thread.
And, if you notice, I put "political speech" in quotes almost everytime I was referencing Andrew's words. There was a reason for that, sir.
And Andrew isn't a public figure-head, either. He's a front line grunt that no one would know anything about, he wasn't elected, he was appointed, and no one would know if the libtards would stop sh*tting themselves about it.
Classic saying applies: don't feed the trolls. The young is doing just that: not feeding the troll. He's the smartest one in the whole bunch: even over CNN producers.
Andrew got screen time that he shouldn't have.
Indeed: I can be fired for any to no reason.
I was making a point that the "unbecoming of his employment" is very slipper-slope that can make just about anyone come under the fascist hammer.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Oct 7th, 2010 at 05:18 AM
"Well, Anderson, I have a huge crush on Chris, but my homophobia prevents me from pursuing a relationship- not to mention my friend Sheila says he called me a 'double bagger'. This is really the best I can do to devote all of my free time to him... other than my hair doll, that is."
KMC Community Forums
Oct 6th, 2010 04:31 PM
)
) Also, you can't fire someone for their hate speech if they do it wholly outside of work.
