Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

[CarltonBanks]

It doesn't mean a lower level of 1st Amendment protection.

But the First Amendment doesn't protect a speaker from the consequences of their speech, does it?

And employers have a right to decide standards of appropriate conduct for their employees. I presume this applies to employment by the state as well.

Yes, it does. The First Amendment protects against the state taking action to punish speech after the fact.

So a public employee speaking as a private citizen on matters of public concern can't be fired from his government job because of his speech.

I also think, if this teacher was fired, this could end up being a form of prior restraint because it would be clear: you take a public stance against gay marriage that some could deem "hateful" there is a good chance you will lose your job.

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

If you were a political reporter and tweeted that the candidate for governor is an idiot, you could get fired.

If you are a dog groomer and tweet that you think poodles are really a dumb, dirty breed of dog, you could get fired.

If you are a CEO of a fast food company and you tweet that only suckers would buy crap that sits under a heat lamp for hours, you could get fired.

This is a new world. You put your ignorant, mean or unwise thoughts out there and they could hurt you.

Who defines what is "ignorant, mean or unwise?" I think that is kind of the point being made here. A college kid wearing a jacket that says "fork the draft" is protected, but a teacher posting something on their personal Facebook page, on their own time using their own equipment, is not?

How is the college kid more protected than the teacher?

He could get fired from his job.

He could get disciplined by his school, presumably, depending on the circumstances.

deck, go brush up on your landmark First Amendment cases, then get back to me.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It doesn't mean a lower level of 1st Amendment protection.

But the First Amendment doesn't protect a speaker from the consequences of their speech, does it?

And employers have a right to decide standards of appropriate conduct for their employees. I presume this applies to employment by the state as well.

Yes, it does. The First Amendment protects against the state taking action to punish speech after the fact.

So a public employee speaking as a private citizen on matters of public concern can't be fired from his government job because of his speech.

I also think, if this teacher was fired, this could end up being a form of prior restraint because it would be clear: you take a public stance against gay marriage that some could deem "hateful" there is a good chance you will lose your job.

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

If you were a political reporter and tweeted that the candidate for governor is an idiot, you could get fired.

If you are a dog groomer and tweet that you think poodles are really a dumb, dirty breed of dog, you could get fired.

If you are a CEO of a fast food company and you tweet that only suckers would buy crap that sits under a heat lamp for hours, you could get fired.

This is a new world. You put your ignorant, mean or unwise thoughts out there and they could hurt you.

Who defines what is "ignorant, mean or unwise?" I think that is kind of the point being made here. A college kid wearing a jacket that says "fork the draft" is protected, but a teacher posting something on their personal Facebook page, on their own time using their own equipment, is not?

How is the college kid more protected than the teacher?

He could get fired from his job.

He could get disciplined by his school, presumably, depending on the circumstances.

deck, go brush up on your landmark First Amendment cases, then get back to me.

It doesn't mean a lower level of 1st Amendment protection.

But the First Amendment doesn't protect a speaker from the consequences of their speech, does it?

And employers have a right to decide standards of appropriate conduct for their employees. I presume this applies to employment by the state as well.

Yes, it does. The First Amendment protects against the state taking action to punish speech after the fact.

So a public employee speaking as a private citizen on matters of public concern can't be fired from his government job because of his speech.

I also think, if this teacher was fired, this could end up being a form of prior restraint because it would be clear: you take a public stance against gay marriage that some could deem "hateful" there is a good chance you will lose your job.

That's not what prior restraint means.

I said a "form of prior restraint." Pay attention. A person not free to make a statement of opinion without fear of retribution is, in a sense, being censored before the fact.

That's not what prior restraint means.

 

[Dick Whitman]

A college kid wearing a jacket that says "fork the draft" is protected, but a teacher posting something on their personal Facebook page, on their own time using their own equipment, is not?

How is the college kid more protected than the teacher?

He could get fired from his job.

He could get disciplined by his school, presumably, depending on the circumstances.
[/quote]deck, go brush up on your landmark First Amendment cases, then get back to me.
[/quote]

I am well aware of the case you're talking about. More aware than you are. The kid is not any more protected than the teacher her. No one is trying to jail or arrest the teacher.

So I ask you again: How was the "fork the Draft" plaintiff more protected under the First Amendment than this teacher? How?

 

[deskslave]

Why do I as a Christian have to worry about someone else's sin and forgiveness?

I believe there are plenty of examples in the bible where folks can be forgiven for anything at any time. Several from Jesus himself.

In fact, he makes the point that God especially cherishes bringing home the prodigal sons.

I believe very strongly in the belief that one can be forgiven for anything at any time -- and that there is no "point value" on sins. Sin is sin, and forgiveness is forgiveness, and that forgiveness is available to all. But I was also raised to believe that, once forgiven, one should attempt to refrain from knowingly committing that sin in the future (but if it happens, there is more forgiveness available).

It's the endorsement of sin that is the problem, whether legal or within the church. Where a lot of evangelicals are scared of gay marriage is that it could be used as a cudgel to force them to accept homosexuality -- tax exemptions withheld for churches who refuse to perform gay weddings, photographers who refuse to shoot them being sued on equal rights statutes, et al. The eHarmony suit -- where New Jersey forced the company to add a "men seeking men" and "women seeking women" section based on its anti-discrimination statutes -- has rung very, very deeply in the evangelical community, as has the targeting of Chick-Fil-A because one local franchise donated food to a marriage conference. That Massachusetts has pulled funding from Catholic adoption agencies because they will only adopt to married heterosexual couples. Those are *big* issues in the evangelical community. In each, it's the case of a company founded on those values that now are being either forced to go against the religious principles on which they were founded legally or having to face societal heckling as a result.

To me, I could care less. I'd rather see the state not sanction marriage and leave it up to the individual church/couple to determine what constitutes marriage, with the state only sanctioning the relationship as a contractual one (which is, in a legal sense, all marriage is), not as a marriage. If some strains of Mormonism want to endorse polygamy, then the state shouldn't have to step in and ban it. If gay couples want to form a union and have a church recognize it, that's fine. If a hetero couple has a similar union, also fine. The state should only assent to the contract between the adults for the sharing of property. But by not providing its endorsement to human relationships, that would also keep the state from tacitly being able to punish those who don't endorse such relationships with anti-discrimination laws.

Lots of religious faiths view drinking alcohol as a sin.

All of them SHOULD view divorce as a sin, since that's in the New Testament just like the homosexuality stuff. Yet most churches I know of would happily perform second marriages (which, IIRC, is Biblically worse than just being divorced, isn't it?).

Point is, call it a sin all you want. Just don't ask what is supposed to be a nonsecular government to uphold your particular world view, not when it comes at the clear expense of others and with no clear benefit to you.

 

[Azrael]

Upcoming appearance at a local church on behalf of free speech a public relations blunder?

http://www.dailycommercial.com/localnews/story/082311TeacherToSpeak

Interesting to see his students commenting.

Additionally vexing that he's a "social studies" teacher?

 

[RickStain]

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

A society that encourages free expression should find that sort of policy distasteful. Especially when the statement in question is political.

Was this speech 'political?'

Was it 'ideological?'

Was it 'religious?'

Asking.

All of the above, and all worthy of protection.

Appropriate to share with his students?

Directly at school? No

Indirectly through how he chooses to express himself on his personal time? Sure.

Indirectly?

How many of his Facebook 'friends' are his (current) students?

Unless he made reading his Facebook posts a requirement of his class, I'd still consider that indirect.

 

[Azrael]

If he said the same thing to one of them in the lobby of a movie theater, still 'indirect?'

 

[RickStain]

No. But if he said it to a large group of people and they happened to be in the group, yes.

And if it was directly to the student in the movie theater, I'd want to know why he was talking to the student. Does he have reason to know the student outside of his status as a student (say, the child of a family friend that he's known for years?), and who initiated the conversation? The student or the teacher?

 

[Ace]

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

A society that encourages free expression should find that sort of policy distasteful. Especially when the statement in question is political.

So if you worked at a restaurant, say, and you posted on your Twitter account that people should eat there at their own risk because a lot of dirty Mexicans worked in the kitchen, you think that sort of free expression should be encouraged and that you should not face any type of discipline at work?

 

[RickStain]

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

A society that encourages free expression should find that sort of policy distasteful. Especially when the statement in question is political.

So if you worked at a restaurant, say, and you posted on your Twitter account that people should eat there at their own risk because a lot of dirty Mexicans worked in the kitchen, you think that sort of free expression should be encouraged and that you should not face any type of discipline at work?

If you mention your restaurant by name and your twitter account mentions that you work there, probably.

If you say something like "I hate working with dirty Mexicans all day," I'm going with "no."

 

[Ace]

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

A society that encourages free expression should find that sort of policy distasteful. Especially when the statement in question is political.

So if you worked at a restaurant, say, and you posted on your Twitter account that people should eat there at their own risk because a lot of dirty Mexicans worked in the kitchen, you think that sort of free expression should be encouraged and that you should not face any type of discipline at work?

If you mention your restaurant by name and your twitter account mentions that you work there, probably.

If you say something like "I hate working with dirty Mexicans all day," I'm going with "no."

Well I'd fire you.

 

[RickStain]

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

A society that encourages free expression should find that sort of policy distasteful. Especially when the statement in question is political.

So if you worked at a restaurant, say, and you posted on your Twitter account that people should eat there at their own risk because a lot of dirty Mexicans worked in the kitchen, you think that sort of free expression should be encouraged and that you should not face any type of discipline at work?

If you mention your restaurant by name and your twitter account mentions that you work there, probably.

If you say something like "I hate working with dirty Mexicans all day," I'm going with "no."

Well I'd fire you.

A lot of people would. A lot of people don't respect free expression as much as I'd like.