This needs to defied through civil disobedience. Make them hire lawyers to defend their positions. If folks don't start pushing back this isn't going to stop. Sometimes it may be necessary to take an ass whippin and not make it easy ..........
On Aug 7, 2016 7:42 AM, "Travis" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is an outrage. > > The Gadsen flag is a flag of rebellion. > > If the Gadsen flag is illegal it IS time for rebellion. > > > > http://www.dailywire.com/news/8110/eeoc-decides-gadsen-flag- > racist-hank-berrien?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium= > email&utm_content=080516-news-title&utm_campaign=six > > > > [image: Description: > http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/08/ap35317424590.jpg?itok=6ZR_ZGKC] > EEOC Decides Gadsen Flag Is Racist > > Daily Wire > <http://www.dailywire.com/news/8110/eeoc-decides-gadsen-flag-racist-hank-berrien?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=080516-news-title&utm_campaign=six> > | > > The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has now taken the > position that displaying the Gadsden flag (AKA the “Don’t Tread on Me” > flag) constitutes racial harassment. > > As UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh points out in , the EEOC decided the case > of *Shelton D. [pseudonym] v. Brennan* > > What logic did “Sheldon D.” use to make his accusation? That the 18th > century designer of the flag, Christopher Gadsden, was a “slave trader & > owner of slaves.” He also contended that Gadsden Flag is a “historical > indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea > Party.” > > At first, the EEOC seems rational, stating, “ … it is clear that the > Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. > Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to > express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the > modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic > displays, and by the military.” > > But with a chance to put the fear of government into the workplace, the > EEOC continues, “However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the > symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey > racially-tinged messages in some contexts. For example, in June 2014, > assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies > of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las > Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.” > > Great. Two nutcases use the Gadsen flag, and suddenly the flag’s historic > meaning has no relevance any more? > > Wait, it gets even more ridiculous. The EEOC asserts, “Additionally, in > 2014, African-American New Haven firefighters complained about the presence > of the Gadsden flag in the workplace on the basis that the symbol was > racially insensitive.” > > On what basis, pray tell? Because some people ascribe nefarious motives to > a symbol of revolution against tyranny we have to take them seriously? > > Volokh cogently delineates how dangerous such a position is: > > Let’s think about how this plays out in the workplace. Imagine that you > are a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any > more than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal > liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.” > An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t > Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car > parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the > coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile > environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The > employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has > been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in > lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially > insensitive.” > > Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into > suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope, > I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees > keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you *may* do as a matter > of your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the > question is whether *the government* is pressuring you to suppress speech > that conveys certain viewpoints.) > > Then Volokh extrapolates from the decision at hand to the current > political climate: > > Now let’s get to the 2016 election campaign. Say someone wears > “Trump/Pence 2016” gear in the workplace, or displays a bumper sticker on > his car in the work parking lot, or displays such a sign on his cubicle > wall, or just says on some occasions that he’s voting for Trump. He doesn’t > say any racial or religious slurs about Hispanics or Muslims, and doesn’t > even express any anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim views (though even such > views, I think, should be protected by the First Amendment against the > threat of government-imposed liability). > > But in “context,” a coworker complains, such speech conveys a message > “tinged” with racial or religious hostility, or is racially or religiously > “insensitive.” The coworker threatens to sue. Again, say you are an > employer facing such a threat. Would you feel pressured by the risk of > liability to restrict the pro-Trump speech? > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNnNhY3IwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NzA0OTk5MzA-> > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbWZhaXU1BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3MDQ5OTkzMA--> > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe > <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms > of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
