Originally posted by King Kandy
Well technically, it wasn't all gays, but rather just this one kid who's Satan's incarnation. But if you didn't hear that part, my only conclusion can be you didn't really watch the video.
I did watch it. The only reason is either that I didn't listen to it in the last five minutes or because I don't like listening to the exaggeration coming from Shirvell's mouth.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
I did watch it. The only reason is either that I didn't listen to it in the last five minutes or because I don't like listening to the exaggeration coming from Shirvell's mouth.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Hearing Cochs try to justify why he didn't fire him is even stranger.
Originally posted by King Kandy
First of all, it's apparently spelled Cox, and we both had it wrong.Secondly, yes:
The Attorney General is 100% right, morally and ethically. Other than that, yeah, we agree that the Andrew fella is scum. In fact, his boss seems like a person I'd work for.
BTW, federal employees and contractors are not allowed to "campaign" against incumbents but they can do as much as they want about elections...within legality. It seems like I'm missing an element to that rule...
Other than Robtard, does anyone think that the Andrew fella is almost as gay as Richard Simmons?
Originally posted by Kinasin
This guy is a total freak and needs to be fired.
True on the first part but wrong on the second part. Firing him would be one of the worst/stupidest things that could be done.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The Attorney General is 100% right, morally and ethically. Other than that, yeah, we agree that the Andrew fella is scum. In fact, his boss seems like a person I'd work for.BTW, federal employees and contractors are not allowed to "campaign" against incumbents but they can do as much as they want about elections...within legality. It seems like I'm missing an element to that rule...
Other than Robtard, does anyone think that the Andrew fella is almost as gay as Richard Simmons?
True on the first part but wrong on the second part. Firing him would be one of the worst/stupidest things that could be done.
His voice certainly sounds like that of a fairy.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Firing him would be the best thing to do, like mentioned he undermines the confidence of the office and therefor firing him is within their ability.
I think the opposite. How can the Attorney General uphold the constitution if he takes an action that goes directly against it for a very petty and counterproductive reason?
So you wanna make a martyr of the ***hole and help his "outside of work only" activities?
I'm all for letting anyone do anything, outside of work, with their personal resources, as long as it is legal and doesn't directly affect me.
Meaning, a cigarette smoker smoking on the side-walk pisses me off when I walk by but a douche-bag, closet super-gay, whining about a gay student body president doesn't bother me and nor should it.
Originally posted by BackFire
No I mean an actual fairy. His voice sounds dainty and magical, like he swallowed a bunch of pixie dust.
lol!
Nice Bon Jovi recovery.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the opposite. How can the Attorney General uphold the constitution if he takes an action that goes directly against it for a very petty and counterproductive reason?So you wanna make a martyr of the ***hole and help his "outside of work only" activities?
I'm all for letting anyone do anything, outside of work, with their personal resources, as long as it is legal and doesn't directly affect me.
Meaning, a cigarette smoker smoking on the side-walk pisses me off when I walk by but a douche-bag, closet super-gay, whining about a gay student body president doesn't bother me and nor should it.
1) libel?
2) harassment?
3) the fact that in a state that had cyberbully legislation his acts would be illegal?
4) despite all of this, the fact the man is a lawyer and public servant, and is expected to treat all people equally and fairly under the law, as part of his job and as a matter of ensuring the constitutional rights you are talking about. Regardless of identifiable infractions, it is not fair to homosexual people, that they would have to go through the process of sucessfully suing the state government (lawyers at that) after they have been denied legal due dillagence, the same way it is not fair to the public at large to have to go through being injured and the legal process to prevent someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The first ammendment is not absolute, and the videos provided have even cited court cases where the supreme court has upheld this. The best rebuttal was "it doesn't apply here".
5) America looks really bad
People have been fired for a lot less than this. The guy is stalking and harassing a young gay man. If some lady can be fired for having sexy photos up on her myspace page, this guy can be fired for what he's been doing.
And him getting fired isn't going to martyr anything. People will see that he got fired and then learn what he'd been doing and just say 'oh, well a crazy person got fired, probably because crazy people aren't particularly competent or trust worthy. Good'.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the opposite. How can the Attorney General uphold the constitution if he takes an action that goes directly against it for a very petty and counterproductive reason?So you wanna make a martyr of the ***hole and help his "outside of work only" activities?
I'm all for letting anyone do anything, outside of work, with their personal resources, as long as it is legal and doesn't directly affect me.
Meaning, a cigarette smoker smoking on the side-walk pisses me off when I walk by but a douche-bag, closet super-gay, whining about a gay student body president doesn't bother me and nor should it.
It isn't an "outside of work only" activity though. He is a legal representative of the state, and how his activities cause said office to be viewed is VERY relevant to his job.
You aren't the attorney general, nor are you gay, nor do you live in Michigan. This issue does not affect you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the people and office that his employment depends on.
It wouldn't bother YOU, obviously. If I was a gay man in Michigan and knew my legal safety would depend on this office, and on obvious homophobes who help run it, I would be extremely bothered.
Originally posted by inimalist
1) libel?2) harassment?
3) the fact that in a state that had cyberbully legislation his acts would be illegal?
4) despite all of this, the fact the man is a lawyer and public servant, and is expected to treat all people equally and fairly under the law, as part of his job and as a matter of ensuring the constitutional rights you are talking about. Regardless of identifiable infractions, it is not fair to homosexual people, that they would have to go through the process of sucessfully suing the state government (lawyers at that) after they have been denied legal due dillagence, the same way it is not fair to the public at large to have to go through being injured and the legal process to prevent someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The first ammendment is not absolute, and the videos provided have even cited court cases where the supreme court has upheld this. The best rebuttal was "it doesn't apply here".
5) America looks really bad
1. It's hard to prove libel when the accusations of satan's pawn are more abstract than tangible.
Judge: Andrew, prove that he is Satan's pawn.
Andrew: He's one of them homer sexualz AND he's head of a student body from a large university. EVIDENC!
Judge: uhh...ermmm...
2. He has not trespassed. Also, if a restraining order is filed, that's what? 200feet? All Andrew has to do is stay on public property 200 feet away and he can protest all day till his heart is content. First ammendment is "beautiful", isn't it? lol
3. He has justified has "cyber-bullying" as political speech. That would be an uphill battle to enforce the local cyber-bullying law as it would come into conflict with the first amendment most especially because it is claimed as political and religious speech. Also, it isn't cyber-bullying, at all, if he keeps his attacks to his own website. It becomes cyber-bullying when he posts messages on his facebook page and other locations that he is a community member. He knows what he's doing and he's a lawyer: he's seen the legal loopholes all the way through this thing.
4. All of what you said is void, on this point, specifically because he does everything outside of work and none of it at work. None of what he does has anything to do with work. As soon as he does something, while on the job, that is against the law, his boss as a legal reason to fire him. Until then, it is very dangerous to try and fire him for protesting.
5. Sort of. Legal reform is necessary in some areas. But this is one area that I wish to remain protected for quite some time. I'd rather Andrew get the ability to whine on his blog and protest on city streets than him to have those freedom to be removed.
Bonus:
6. Until there is a law put in place that states government employees cannot practice political and religious bigotry, outside of work, while employed, then he's not in trouble.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It does not go against the constitution; he is a state employ, and his employment is subject to views of the tax payers who employ him. That's a fundamental principle of republican democracies. It's also backed up by supreme court rulings on the issue.It isn't an "outside of work only" activity though. He is a legal representative of the state, and how his activities cause said office to be viewed is VERY relevant to his job.
You aren't the attorney general, nor are you gay, nor do you live in Michigan. This issue does not affect you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the people and office that his employment depends on.
It wouldn't bother YOU, obviously. If I was a gay man in Michigan and knew my legal safety would depend on this office, and on obvious homophobes who help run it, I would be extremely bothered.
Woah woah woah woah.
You seem to have missed the point of the constitution. There are certain unalienable rights that no matter what the people vote on, they cannot be infringed upon by the constitution.
No they are not. Not at all. You see it that way specifically because you see his legal job as conflicting with his spare time. That's rather illegal: you can't tell your state employees to not exercise their rights to the first amendment SPECIFICALLY because they are government employees.
I agree. But, if for one moment, one of Andrew's employees say that Andrew's blog is affecting them, that's definitely wrong. The only exception would be a third party attacking Andrew's coworkers just because they work at the same place. Then that third party is doing something illegal and, as lawyers, they can definitely handle themselves. lol!
You'd be extremely bothered only if you were ignorant of the law. Think about it: you're a smart dude. I don't think you'd worry about jack shit. In fact, you'd probably be hoping he DID do something illegal/unethical so you could sue the shit out of him. 😄 As soon as he did something while at work, related to his hate, you've got him. It could be as simple as the security logs showing that he accessed his hate blog while at work (which would be VERY easy to prove.)
But, Andrew seems like a "smart" hater: hating in the "right" way to avoid getting into deep shit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Woah woah woah woah.You seem to have missed the point of the constitution. There are certain unalienable rights that no matter what the people vote on, they cannot be infringed upon by the constitution.
No they are not. Not at all. You see it that way specifically because you see his legal job as conflicting with his spare time. That's rather illegal: you can't tell your state employees to not exercise their rights to the first amendment SPECIFICALLY because they are government employees.
I agree. But, if for one moment, one of Andrew's employees say that Andrew's blog is affecting them, that's definitely wrong. The only exception would be a third party attacking Andrew's coworkers just because they work at the same place. Then that third party is doing something illegal and, as lawyers, they can definitely handle themselves. lol!
You'd be extremely bothered only if you were ignorant of the law. Think about it: you're a smart dude. I don't think you'd worry about jack shit. In fact, you'd probably be hoping he DID do something illegal/unethical so you could sue the shit out of him. 😄 As soon as he did something while at work, related to his hate, you've got him. It could be as simple as the security logs showing that he accessed his hate blog while at work (which would be VERY easy to prove.)
But, Andrew seems like a "smart" hater: hating in the "right" way to avoid getting into deep shit.
The justice department has a right to fire any employ that is lowering the effectiveness of that office, which is what Shirvell is doing; he's casting a negative image that removes people's ability to trust the justice department. As a government official, he is supposed to represent the people, and as such his work life is not the only thing his employment depends on.