You will support gays or else

Karen · #41 08/21/11, 04:48 AM

If you agreed to a particular 'code of ethics', then you knowingly agree that your First Amendment rights no longer apply. No one forces you to agree to that, you make the decision yourself.

It's no different than when you sign up to HT, you forfeit the right to say anything you want. You can't voice an inappropriate opinion then claim First Amendment when it's deleted. It's an agreement you make that the content of our posts are determined to be appropriate or inappropriate, not by laws, but at the discretion of the management.

So if a teacher agrees to the terms of his contract, then he can't go around saying any thing he wants publicly. It doesn't mean he isn't entitled to his beliefs, it just means he can't go around expressing them wherever and whenever he wants. The teacher's code of ethics would apply to any content that is seen by his peers, students, or management. That would be considered 'public'.

naturelover · #42 08/21/11, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrek

Just the local students , workers, job seekers and romantically involved folks I have heard of getting in between rocks and hard places over the last few years because of websites of that type I am left thinking of many of them as a social network disease because they are helping destroy lives as any pandemic.

Practically every website now is infected with multiple icons from various social networks that quickly log the user in and shares who knows what where. Things as those many networks will eventually destroy the net as folks unfriend, stop following etc. Its becoming a data mine version of a strip mining operation.

They all need to show some restraint and individual structure instead of slop sloshing all around the net.

I agree with this. I think people's big mouthes and lack of discretion and good sense may eventually be the downfall of social networking online, possibly even bring about the end of internet as we have come to know it in the past 5 years.

A couple of weeks ago I was reading on the CKA forums about an investigative research company based in America with branches in Canada and Europe that has people working 24/7 looking for information about people who have applied for jobs.

Prospective employers contract with this research company to dig up every single thing they can find in cyberspace about the applicants. Social networks like FB and twitter, photobucket, forums, comments posted on media sites, blogs, journals, pictures that have been posted, you name it. If the applicant they're researching has posted pictures, comments and personal opinions or information about themself at any time anywhere on internet these people can and will find it. Then they present the whole kit and kaboodle of it to the company that hired them and the company uses that information to determine whether or not the applicant is suitable for them to hire.

.

Energy Rebel · #43 08/21/11, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

You have the right to post what you wish and your employer has the right to fire you if they wish. IOW, the employer has rights as well.

The only problem I have with this is the fact his employer is the government. That puts a different curve on the ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyDay

He has the right to say it.
His employer has the right to fire him.

What I don't get is why people befriend anyone and everyone on FB. FB makes it so easy for us to only allow those we know/trust to read our posts. DD has 450 friends! WHAT? She doesn't even know 450 people! I tell her to be careful what she posts because she really doesn't "know" all those people. Her page is set to Private, but what's the point when you let everyone in anyway?

I think this is where the teacher messed up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big rockpile

Strange an old GF of mine was a Teacher until she brought her Husband to a School function.He happen to be Black.

Seems Schools have the right to get rid of Teachers for what ever reason they choose.

big rockpile

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catalytic

Exactly. This man obviously watches the news...which makes him an obvious idiot in my book, because there is always some warning or another about watching what you do on Facebook, or the 'net in general.

Take off the blinders. The DEMAND is that he follow a code of ethics. Following it is, in fact, is a condition of his employment. There is no demand he support gay marriage, just like there is no demand he support gays in the military, bi-racial marriages, abortion, or any other controversial public topic. What there IS a demand for is ethical behavior, and he violated it. NO ONE with 700 "friends" has a "private" page. He knew his post was controversial, in fact, he wanted it to be.

BTW, I very much support gay marriage, as well. My mother, OTOH, who just retired from public school teaching in FL, is adamantly opposed to it, it violates her religious beliefs. Yet she doesn't feel the need to post that all over Facebook...

Yep. And anyone who is going to try to flaunt their "right to type" in this economy is an idiot.

No one cares what his viewpoint is. Supporting or not supporting gay marriage is not a condition of his employment. Acting in an ethical manner, however, IS a condition of his employment...and he violated it. As for being a government employee...guess what, the military exists to protect our rights, which include the right to free speech...and servicemembers are quite restricted about what they can spew in a public venue...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karen

If you agreed to a particular 'code of ethics', then you knowingly agree that your First Amendment rights no longer apply. No one forces you to agree to that, you make the decision yourself.

It's no different than when you sign up to HT, you forfeit the right to say anything you want. You can't voice an inappropriate opinion then claim First Amendment when it's deleted. It's an agreement you make that the content of our posts are determined to be appropriate or inappropriate, not by laws, but at the discretion of the management.

So if a teacher agrees to the terms of his contract, then he can't go around saying any thing he wants publicly. It doesn't mean he isn't entitled to his beliefs, it just means he can't go around expressing them wherever and whenever he wants. The teacher's code of ethics would apply to any content that is seen by his peers, students, or management. That would be considered 'public'.

I was raised, went to school and my mother was a 30+ year teacher in Lake county Florida.

Yes, you sign an ethical code of conduct, but for those of you who think an employer can fire you for ANY reason, better think again.
This is one of the most misquoted areas of the law that I have seen.
An employer can NOT fire you for ANY reason, if you don't believe me, read the right-to-work laws published on most labor dept. sites of any state, particularly the southern ones.
You can NOT fire someone based on race, gender, religious and in most cases age discrimination, particularly if the gov't is the employer.
He was citing his religious views on his own time.
Case closed.

You can repeat this misquote of the law if you wish, but is simply not true.
I hope he sues the you-know-what out of the county and wins a boatload of money.

EasyDay · #44 08/21/11, 10:13 AM

Since you quoted me in your last reply, please refer to my post #12.

That's why I brought up his contract. I believe that if there isn't anything in his contract about making certain public statements, then he SHOULD win this case... lock, stock, and barrel!!

I just don't believe that there is anything in a teacher's contract prohibiting them from their freedom of speech on social issues outside of school. Both of my parents were teachers all of their lives... mom retired from teaching in her 70s. She was all for the Constitution, and I think she would have mentioned if they tried to squash her freedom of speech.

Now, if a teacher said it in the classroom, I think it's completely inappropriate because it's not the right time/place for personal opinions. But, he wasn't IN the school.... which comes full-circle back to post #12!

Clear as mud, right?

EasyDay · #45 08/21/11, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Energy Rebel

An employer can NOT fire you for ANY reason.

Sure they can. It's called "laid off".

Energy Rebel · #46 08/21/11, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyDay

Sure they can. It's called "laid off".

That is NOT the same.
Firing is a for cause or an actionable offense, usually resulting in no claim for unemployment.
Laid off is different, usually qualifying as being unemployed "through no fault of your own."

Quoting employment law here.

Energy Rebel · #47 08/21/11, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyDay

Since you quoted me in your last reply, please refer to my post #12.

That's why I brought up his contract. I believe that if there isn't anything in his contract about making certain public statements, then he SHOULD win this case... lock, stock, and barrel!!

I just don't believe that there is anything in a teacher's contract prohibiting them from their freedom of speech on social issues outside of school. Both of my parents were teachers all of their lives... mom retired from teaching in her 70s. She was all for the Constitution, and I think she would have mentioned if they tried to squash her freedom of speech.

Now, if a teacher said it in the classroom, I think it's completely inappropriate because it's not the right time/place for personal opinions. But, he wasn't IN the school.... which comes full-circle back to post #12!

Clear as mud, right?

Agreed.

stormwalker · #48 08/21/11, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyDay

“It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.

Woo Hoo!!!!!

Can he state that he has an aversion to black people? How about women voting?
Should we just blind an eye to his statement?
If I had a homosexual child in his class, would I think my child was protected?
How about he thinks girls should stay at home and produce babies?
He has the right to his own views, but we're talking about control of our children.

EasyDay · #49 08/21/11, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormwalker

Can he state that he has an aversion to black people? How about women voting?
He can state any aversions he wants. It's not illegal to have an opinion.

Should we just blind an eye to his statement?
If you don't like his opinions, don't go on his FB page. Easy, right?

If I had a homosexual child in his class, would I think my child was protected?
Why WOULDN'T you feel your child was protected IN THE CLASSROOM?
None of this happened in the classroom.

How about he thinks girls should stay at home and produce babies?
So WHAT? You want to control his thoughts? Shame on you. In fact, I've met a lot of men that think girls should stay home and produce babies. That doesn't make them dangerous.. in fact, it doesn't even effect our friendship... and I'm a girl. I just call them "male chauvinist pigs"... they laugh... who cares? Someone else's THOUGHTS can't hurt anyone!! Only actions can.

He has the right to his own views, but we're talking about control of our children.

IMO, if your kids are reading that much into FB without parental supervision, then the parents are at fault. There's a lot worse stuff out there than this guy's comments.

BTW, I have an aversion to people who want to control our thoughts. Just thought I'd let you know that. You can reach the police at 911.

stormwalker · #50 08/22/11, 12:21 AM

So, if you were black you would be happy to have a bigot teaching your child?

I don't think the criteria for teachers stands that they are not dangerous!!???!!!

I'm not going to laugh at a "male chauvinist pig" having control over children of either sex.

What if your child brings to your attention a page on FB that is directly phobic or bigoted towards your child?

RebelCowboySnB · #51 08/22/11, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormwalker

Can he state that he has an aversion to black people?

He did not say anything about race. He said a religious statement about marriage which is a religious based event.

This falls under the first, second an 14th amendment.

Not sure where how I ended up with the second amendment in there

stormwalker · #52 08/22/11, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebelCowboySnB

He did not say anything about race. He said a religious statement about marriage which is a religious based event.

This falls under the first, second an 14th amendment.

Would you like to include Sharia law?

Yvonne's hubby · #53 08/22/11, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Energy Rebel

Yes, you sign an ethical code of conduct, but for those of you who think an employer can fire you for ANY reason, better think again.

I think most folks are aware that there are some things that a person cannot be fired for. However I also think most folks are well aware that the vast majority of employees are in violation of "crimes" they can be legally fired for that go overlooked most of the time. This way when the boss wants them out.. for whatever reason... they can fire them for one of those "legitimate" infractions. If you think someones job is "safe" because they cant be fired for this, that or the other "protected" reasons.... you had better think again.

southerngurl · #54 08/22/11, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Can he state that he has an aversion to black people? How about women voting?
He can state any aversions he wants. It's not illegal to have an opinion.

Which is why he wasn't charged with a crime...

Energy Rebel · #55 08/22/11, 09:38 AM

No, he was not charged with a crime, but hopefully his employer will be, the Lake County school system.
For the umpteenth time it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of their religion, even school teachers.
It may be like driving in the left lane (not enforced) but it is still illegal.
Yes, many employers get away with a lot of stuff, especially nowadays, but only if you allow it.
As far as ethical codes of conducts, a generation ago, this would not have been an issue because they were very stern about NOT having favorable opinions towards homosexuality.
This is a known fact. (See my first post).

The point is, Lake county schools violated the law in firing this man,(actually the article said, "removed from his duties" and he was trying to be "reinstated") let justice be done.

FourDeuce · #56 08/22/11, 11:45 AM

"For the umpteenth time it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of their religion, even school teachers."

And, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't fired for his religion. He was fired for his ACTIONS. If you can't understand the difference, the dictionary helps.

RebelCowboySnB · #57 08/22/11, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

And, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't fired for his religion. He was fired for his ACTIONS.

The action is part of his religion. It is not a separate thing.

Energy Rebel · #58 08/22/11, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

"For the umpteenth time it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of their religion, even school teachers."

And, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't fired for his religion. He was fired for his ACTIONS. If you can't understand the difference, the dictionary helps.

I understand it well and own several dictionaries.
As I said, my mother was an English teacher in the town next door to Mt. Dora.

His "actions" were to state his religious beliefs on a forum outside of the classroom.
This falls under the 1st Amendment.

I'l see if I can find and post the labor laws in Florida that also relate to this.

southerngurl · #59 08/22/11, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

"For the umpteenth time it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of their religion, even school teachers."

And, for the umpteenth time, he wasn't fired for his religion. He was fired for his ACTIONS. If you can't understand the difference, the dictionary helps.

Religion is active.

Energy Rebel · #60 08/22/11, 12:39 PM

Here is one statute, it covers free speech of both the employer and employee (public).

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0447.501.html

And on another note...........to the question of someone's personal views affecting their job performance, didn't this man just win a Teacher of the Year award?

Hmmmmmm.............