Phillipines - law= Anthem must be sung with spirit!

[darin]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/world/asia/philippines-may-get-new-law-sing-national-anthem-with-spirit-or-face-prison-time.html

Not enough government influence over lives - the Philippine government wants to further subjugate its citizens to properly praise the nation. Sickening.



Filipinos would be required to sing the national anthem when it is played in public — and to do so with enthusiasm — under a bill that the House of Representatives of the Philippines approved on Monday.
If the bill, which will be considered by the Senate, is approved and signed into law, a failure to sing the anthem, “Lupang Hinirang,” with sufficient energy would be punishable by up to year in prison and a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 pesos, or about $1,000 to $2,000. A second offense would include both a fine and prison time, and violators would be penalized by “public censure” in a newspaper.
“The singing shall be mandatory and must be done with fervor,” the bill states.

[pete311]

Something tells me this will never be enforced? What, they got anthem police watching people?

[darin]

Something tells me this will never be enforced? What, they got anthem police watching people?

I bet absolutely will be enforced.


But you miss the greater point - the travesty to Liberty by having these laws in the first place. Having the law means at some point some despot may want to enforce.

[pete311]

I bet absolutely will be enforced.


But you miss the greater point - the travesty to Liberty by having these laws in the first place. Having the law means at some point some despot may want to enforce.

I think we/they should be focusing their energy on the growing terrorists they harbor.

[darin]

I think we/they should be focusing their energy on the growing terrorists they harbor.

100% agree.

Funny thing - if I'm not mistaken Philippines is a "Christian" nation yet would support such a law like in the OP. Just so weird how "Christians" can be so vile as to trample liberty for what is essentially forced country worship.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They are going to have to hire a lot of expert music critics to determine if enough gusto is put into the voice when singing..
When I visit there they had better exempt foreigners from this Idiocy/Stalinism, as I am one very lousy singer.
Additionally, I do not and will not sing, dance, pray, shout, etc, on command.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

100% agree.

Funny thing - if I'm not mistaken Philippines is a "Christian" nation yet would support such a law like in the OP. Just so weird how "Christians" can be so vile as to trample liberty for what is essentially forced country worship.
PHILIPPINES IS OVERWHELMINGLY A CATHOLIC NATION , IN EXCESS OF 90% METHINKS.
Spain owned it(native filipino's were basically slaves) for over 300 years. We got it as payment for our war costs after the Spanish/American War.-Tyr

[darin]

At least Filipinas can be smokin' hot.

[darin]

PHILIPPINES IS OVERWHELMINGLY A CATHOLIC NATION , IN EXCESS OF 90% METHINKS.
Spain owned it(native filipino's were basically slaves) for over 300 years. We got it as payment for our war costs after the Spanish/American War.-Tyr

So I'm right :) And spain should be paying reparations right?

[Abbey Marie]

At least Filipinas can be smokin' hot.

They are often very pretty women.

This potential law creeps me out.

[Kathianne]

I can see the use of the law by the current president to incarcerate enemies of 'the state.'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At least Filipinas can be smokin' hot.

Many are burning sun-surface hot my friend and very free-minded in regards to lovemaking and such with their husbands.
Totally committed to family.. of course there are some there t"hat are just the opposite, especially if they were ""bargirls"".

I view my darling wife as sun-surface hot... and with true and just cause..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So I'm right :) And spain should be paying reparations right?

You know, one never hear the dem/libs cry out for Spain to pay for its colonizing and murder of tens of millions of natives.
Basically that is only against America they cry out.
Whereas Spain murdered millions and stole their lands. Of which the PHILIPPINES IS A 300+YEAR EXAMPLE. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Horrible thing forced patriotism.

We do it differently here.
If you don't stand at the U.S. anthem at sporting events we just want you to lose your CAREER and livelihood.
Plus your character's called into question, you're called names and publicly scorned.

no jail time or direct fines yet.
but being fired from your job because of "lack of respect" for the anthem seems OK to a lot of LOYAL "real" Patriotic Americans.


:saluting2:

[darin]

Horrible thing forced patriotism.

We do it differently here.
If you don't stand at the U.S. anthem at sporting events we just want you to lose your CAREER and livelihood.
Plus your character's called into question, you're called names and publicly scorned.

no jail time or direct fines yet.
but being fired from your job because of "lack of respect" for the anthem seems OK to a lot of LOYAL "real" Patriotic Americans.


:saluting2:

That's all good because the govt' doesn't do those things - a free society does.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Horrible thing forced patriotism.

We do it differently here.
If you don't stand at the U.S. anthem at sporting events we just want you to lose your CAREER and livelihood.
Plus your character's called into question, you're called names and publicly scorned.

no jail time or direct fines yet.
but being fired from your job because of "lack of respect" for the anthem seems OK to a lot of LOYAL "real" Patriotic Americans.


:saluting2:

Punishment for lack of respect should be reserved for politicians only as they swear to uphold our Constitution and defend this nation.
That punishment should be carried out by--not voting for them..
Obama's well publicized disrespect should have caused him to not be elected but the American people as a whole are fools when certain propaganda and bias is concerned.
Government job, being paid with our tax dollars TO SERVE THIS NATION --the offender should lose his/her job IMHO.
OTHERWISE, PUBLIC SCORN OR APPLAUSE SHOULD BE METED OUT DEPENDING UPON ONES PERSONAL VIEWS..
I MYSELF, GO WITH PUBLIC SCORN IN SUCH CASES.-Tyr

[revelarts]

That's all good because the govt' doesn't do those things - a free society does.

SO if a mob takes your job for not respecting the gov't Anthem "properly" instead of the gov't doing it THAT'S OK?

I'm not sure how that's "all good" dmp.

[Abbey Marie]

SO if a mob takes your job for not respecting the gov't Anthem "properly" instead of the gov't doing it THAT'S OK?

I'm not sure how that's "all good" dmp.

Rev, I would think you of all people would appreciate the difference between free market forces operating on one's decisions, and the full force of the government curtailing and criminalizing your freedoms.

[darin]

SO if a mob takes your job for not respecting the gov't Anthem "properly" instead of the gov't doing it THAT'S OK?

I'm not sure how that's "all good" dmp.

You are "debating" like a petulant teenager.

[Kathianne]

revelarts

I'm not sure if you're addressing 'any old person' at a game or the football player? If you say that an individual would be hounded out of their job or the 'mob' would make them stand, I've never seen it. Now if you decide that you're going to draw attention somehow, with a bullhorn or a banner or something, you'd probably get attention, including the camera which your boss might see. Your personal choice to garner attention might well have consequences.

The football player? He wanted to make a statement, he did. It was noticed and had repercussions on his team and the NFL in general. They made choices based on the reaction. It's a business.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure if you're addressing 'any old person' at a game or the football player? If you say that an individual would be hounded out of their job or the 'mob' would make them stand, I've never seen it. Now if you decide that you're going to draw attention somehow, with a bullhorn or a banner or something, you'd probably get attention, including the camera which your boss might see. Your personal choice to garner attention might well have consequences.
Yes just like in the Philipines "consequences"


The football player? He wanted to make a statement, he did. It was noticed and had repercussions on his team and the NFL in general. They made choices based on the reaction. It's a business.

"They made choices based on the reaction..." of the patriotic MOB yes.
that's my point.
Look
I don't like the idea of people being run off their jobs because people FAIL to be patriotic to the proper degree or in the proper way.
frankly I don't like the fact that Paula Dean and a few other celebrities lost her jobs over... basically revealing who how pitifully they think.


But especially when it comes to people's views on gov't or religion, to me it's PETTY and UNamerican to punish others for those views.
Whether the punishment comes directly from the gov't --as the gov't of the Philippines is tyrannically proposing.
Or if it comes from the gov't pressuring businesses to make it uncomfortable for employees or customers --As the red scare and McCarthyism Blacklisted various people in the arts for their supposed political views.
Or if it comes from the flag waving MOB who are hooting and complaining that they don't like someone's politics or religion so they try to put them out of biz —As with Football players or Wedding Cake bakers or Chic-fil-a


I can understand some companies not wanting to use a controversial personality in TV ads.
But being a football player is an entertainment job like playing the piano IMO.
Why should folks care so much about the players politics or religion to the point that they want them SILENCED and fired?
as i said IMO it's UN-American. And just a half step away from direct gov’t enforcement of “patriotism”


as Tyr said some people aren't comfortable being FORCED to be patriotic the way everyone else likes it.

[revelarts]

Rev, I would think you of all people would appreciate the difference between free market forces operating on one's decisions, and the full force of the government curtailing and criminalizing your freedoms.

Sure but, When "free market forces" are so politically motivated so to deprive people of their livelihoods because employees don't show "proper patriotism"
I don't feel very comfortable.

Blind lock step lotalty and reverence to gov't, the flag and the Anthem just rubs me wrong.
It's the ideals that i like to see honored.
I mean the U.S. was BORN in rebellion to "proper" authority. Disrespecting the crown and gov't was part of it. So much so that the freedom to make public political and even ANTI government statements was enumerated as a right.

So yes there's a difference.
the difference is the "Free Market" volunteered to be the guard dog of proper state obedeince and loyalty.
So the Gov't didn't HAVE to do anything.
that is a real difference but it doesn't make me LIKE IT much better.

[Kathianne]

Rev, there's a world of difference from the government requiring certain behaviors or speech, from accepting the consequences of one's behaviors.

Celebrity has consequences of its own, as the case with football player and his choosing certain behaviors and speech. I may be wrong, but initially he just took a knee, without comment? Then when asked, is when he actually got pushback. If he chose to just ignore that question, certainly not have kept talking about his girlfriend and her influencing him on 'how bad America is,' I doubt much would have really happened, especially some basically saying 'bye' to NFL games, which is when he really ran into personal problem.

Celebrity also gives folks who may not be the brightest bulbs without writers, to spew whatever they like regarding causes, for better or worse. They get 'heard,' perhaps more widely than they thought would happen. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes not so much.

It was the reason that I brought up the choice of someone to just sit in the stands during the anthem. Sure there might be some fool that tries to demand they stand, but unlikely. IF it happened, 9 out of 10 times someone would talk down the fool or an attendant would show up. Same person though, wants to make a 'statement' as I opined about. Then there might be more of a reaction, enough for camera to pan to. IF that happened, then other consequences might come forth, such as employment problems, depending on boss and job.

Most less than liberal celebrities, especially in CA just do not speak at all regarding politics-it could well cost them their futures.

[revelarts]

Rev, there's a world of difference from the government requiring certain behaviors or speech, from accepting the consequences of one's behaviors.

Celebrity has consequences of its own, as the case with football player and his choosing certain behaviors and speech. I may be wrong, but initially he just took a knee, without comment? Then when asked, is when he actually got pushback. If he chose to just ignore that question, certainly not have kept talking about his girlfriend and her influencing him on 'how bad America is,' I doubt much would have really happened, especially some basically saying 'bye' to NFL games, which is when he really ran into personal problem.

Celebrity also gives folks who may not be the brightest bulbs without writers, to spew whatever they like regarding causes, for better or worse. They get 'heard,' perhaps more widely than they thought would happen. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes not so much.

It was the reason that I brought up the choice of someone to just sit in the stands during the anthem. Sure there might be some fool that tries to demand they stand, but unlikely. IF it happened, 9 out of 10 times someone would talk down the fool or an attendant would show up. Same person though, wants to make a 'statement' as I opined about. Then there might be more of a reaction, enough for camera to pan to. IF that happened, then other consequences might come forth, such as employment problems, depending on boss and job.

Most less than liberal celebrities, especially in CA just do not speak at all regarding politics it could well cost them their futures.
Yes, there's certainly a real difference between gov't mandated actions and actions that are demands, punishments and career consequences via social/'free market" pressures.

The consequences however may not be that different.

If the local Sheriff hits you on the head because he doesn't like what you said about "AMERICA!"
or if it's your neighbor who hits you on the head, you still have cracked skull because of your political opinion.

you mention Colleges, that's a good example. many Christian college professors self censor in the sciences and social sciences for fear of losing their careers.
From time to time before hiring or on the job they are ASKED their opinions (inqusition style) and they say what they believe when questioned, but otherwise DO THEIR JOBS. However because of their non-PC, non-science cult answers they "suffer the consequences".

Maybe you think it's OK that they are fired or pressured out of their jobs because the market/mob can do what it likes.
I think it BS and UNamerican to fire and blackball people (or expect people to self-censor) for their religious or political opinions. ESPECIALLY when it has ZERO to do with their work.

there are cases on the left and right where people that work as electricians and such have been fired because they have the WRONG presidential sticker on their car and the bosses and the rest of the crew didn't like it.
From what i understand It's LEGAL to fire for any reason in a lot of cases.
But sure Kath, private action is far from gov't legal actions, but I think it's UNamerican BS that mimics gov't tyranny.

[Kathianne]

Yes, there's certainly a real difference between gov't mandated actions and actions that are demands, punishments and career consequences via social/'free market" pressures.

The consequences however may not be that different.

If the local Sheriff hits you on the head because he doesn't like what you said about "AMERICA!"
or if it's your neighbor who hits you on the head, you still have cracked skull because of your political opinion.

you mention Colleges, that's a good example. many Christian college professors self censor in the sciences and social sciences for fear of losing their careers.
From time to time before hiring or on the job they are ASKED their opinions (inqusition style) and they say what they believe when questioned, but otherwise DO THEIR JOBS. However because of their non-PC, non-science cult answers they "suffer the consequences".

Maybe you think it's OK that they are fired or pressured out of their jobs because the market/mob can do what it likes.
I think it BS and UNamerican to fire and blackball people (or expect people to self-censor) for their religious or political opinions. ESPECIALLY when it has ZERO to do with their work.

there are cases on the left and right where people that work as electricians and such have been fired because they have the WRONG presidential sticker on their car and the bosses and the rest of the crew didn't like it.
From what i understand It's LEGAL to fire for any reason in a lot of cases.
But sure Kath, private action is far from gov't legal actions, but I think it's UNamerican BS that mimics gov't tyranny.


I think you're veering off onto other issues now. I thought the discussion was on what happens when a celebrity, such as the football player, takes a stand and experiences consequences of such stand. He was able to do as he wished, through his last season. Some folks booed, turned off their NFL games, didn't put out the $$$ for attending a game; others were very supportive of him. Different strokes, all expressing their own opinions on his opinions. Everyone expressed themselves in form or another.

Really isn't different than what Kathy Griffin pulled, though her's was more shocking and the repercussions swifter.

Judgement of each person is really not more than asking folks to be civil-respecting the rights of others.

[revelarts]

I think you're veering off onto other issues now. I thought the discussion was on what happens when a celebrity, such as the football player, takes a stand and experiences consequences of such stand. He was able to do as he wished, through his last season. Some folks booed, turned off their NFL games, didn't put out the $$$ for attending a game; others were very supportive of him. Different strokes, all expressing their own opinions on his opinions. Everyone expressed themselves in form or another.
Really isn't different than what Kathy Griffin pulled, though her's was more shocking and the repercussions swifter.
Judgement of each person is really not more than asking folks to be civil-respecting the rights of others.

Kath, i think i'm being pretty clear on the overall principles I'm talking about here.
If NFL players are NOT being fired because of MOB reaction to non-play related political activity or comments, OK fine.
If they are then it seems to me that the consequences are not much different from various forms of gov't enforced patriotism.

And Again SURE!! people on all sides have a right to complain and put their money where they'd like.
You brought up other instances and venues as well.
But Again IMO if a PLUMMER or a FOOTBALL PLAYER has something like a MEXICAN FLAG sticker on their tool box or painted on their face (or whatever) during a game I think they may be unamerican but it's UNAMERICAN and wrong to fire them for it.

Seems to me all sides are getting as bad as the LGBTXYZ community, unable to BEAR any opinions but their own.
so they must be FIRED, attacked and pressured out of sight.

As far as Katy Giffin is concerned, the severed head of the president is frankly a bit more striking than kneeling at the Anthem.... by any rational standards it seems to me.
As I believe you've often pointed out that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.
Plus as a SPOKESPERSON for the network her jobs involves her political opinions, and appealing to a broad spectrum audience. So the networks have every right ditch whoever they don't like. FOX doesn't have many (any?) LEFT wing host. MSNBC doesn't have Right Wing host or Host that are TOO FAR left. NONE of them have many libertarian host or any 'conspiracy theory" host or anarchist host.

Her job is a media face job, her politics are fair game.
She's not Plumber, a math teacher or football player

[Black Diamond]

Kath, i think i'm being pretty clear on the overall principles I'm talking about here.
If NFL players are NOT being fired because of MOB reaction to non-play related political activity or comments, OK fine.
If they are then it seems to me that the consequences are not much different from various forms of gov't enforced patriotism.

And Again SURE!! people on all sides have a right to complain and put their money where they'd like.
You brought up other instances and venues as well.
But Again IMO if a PLUMMER or a FOOTBALL PLAYER has something like a MEXICAN FLAG sticker on their tool box or painted on their face (or whatever) during a game I think they may be unamerican but it's UNAMERICAN and wrong to fire them for it.

Seems to me all sides are getting as bad as the LGBTXYZ community, unable to BEAR any opinions but their own.
so they must be FIRED, attacked and pressured out of sight.

As far as Katy Giffin is concerned, the severed head of the president is frankly a bit more striking than kneeling at the Anthem.... by any rational standards it seems to me.
As I believe you've often pointed out that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.
Plus as a SPOKESPERSON for the network her jobs involves her political opinions, and appealing to a broad spectrum audience. So the networks have every right ditch whoever they don't like. FOX doesn't have many (any?) LEFT wing host. MSNBC doesn't have Right Wing host or Host that are TOO FAR left. NONE of them have many libertarian host or any 'conspiracy theory" host or anarchist host.

Her job is a media face job, her politics are fair game.
She's not Plumber, a math teacher or football player
What if nfl player comes out waving the confederate flag or displaying it during the national anthem via tattoo or other methods?

[revelarts]

What if nfl player comes out waving the confederate flag or displaying it during the national anthem via tattoo or other methods?

If he's playing a decent game, I don't care.
he should NOT be fired.
If he does interviews and rambles a load of racist BS and he loses any endorsements.
that's fine too.
But what he does on the field is PLAY a GAME for entertainment. If he's got skills and somehow is able to GET along with the minorities on the team then FINE. This is America, people have a right to be stupid scumbags. I was never a fan of Denise Rodman's "lifestyle" and his mouth and activities off the court. But the guy could play Ball.

IF another group of players come out on the field with Confederate flags and BURN them during the anthem.
that's cool too. If they lose endorsements that's fine.

But they all are hired to play a game, everything else is a side show.
As long as they aren't Carrying the bloody head of a President, Or waving loaded guns or running out nude, or promoting pedophilia or other crimes they should be left alone to do their "jobs".

[Black Diamond]

If he's playing a decent game, I don't care.
he should NOT be fired.
If he does interviews and rambles a load of racist BS and he loses any endorsements.
that's fine too.
But what he does on the field is PLAY a GAME for entertainment. If he's got skills and somehow is able to GET along with the minorities on the team then FINE. This is America, people have a right to be stupid scumbags. I was never a fan of Denise Rodman's "lifestyle" and his mouth and activities off the court. But the guy could play Ball.

IF another group of players come out on the field with Confederate flags and BURN them during the anthem.
that's cool too. If they lose endorsements that's fine.

But they all are hired to play a game, everything else is a side show.
As long as they aren't Carrying the bloody head of a President, Or waving loaded guns or running out nude, or promoting pedophilia or other crimes they should be left alone to do their "jobs".
Rodman was fined 50k or saying all there is in Utah is a bunch of mormons. i thought kapernick just didn't get a new contract. i didn't think he was fired. the problem i have is if keapernick has said stuff that was anti gay he would be suspended. but not for his antics during the national anthem.

[Kathianne]

Kath, i think i'm being pretty clear on the overall principles I'm talking about here.
If NFL players are NOT being fired because of MOB reaction to non-play related political activity or comments, OK fine.
If they are then it seems to me that the consequences are not much different from various forms of gov't enforced patriotism.

And Again SURE!! people on all sides have a right to complain and put their money where they'd like.
You brought up other instances and venues as well.
But Again IMO if a PLUMMER or a FOOTBALL PLAYER has something like a MEXICAN FLAG sticker on their tool box or painted on their face (or whatever) during a game I think they may be unamerican but it's UNAMERICAN and wrong to fire them for it.

Seems to me all sides are getting as bad as the LGBTXYZ community, unable to BEAR any opinions but their own.
so they must be FIRED, attacked and pressured out of sight.

As far as Katy Giffin is concerned, the severed head of the president is frankly a bit more striking than kneeling at the Anthem.... by any rational standards it seems to me.
As I believe you've often pointed out that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.
Plus as a SPOKESPERSON for the network her jobs involves her political opinions, and appealing to a broad spectrum audience. So the networks have every right ditch whoever they don't like. FOX doesn't have many (any?) LEFT wing host. MSNBC doesn't have Right Wing host or Host that are TOO FAR left. NONE of them have many libertarian host or any 'conspiracy theory" host or anarchist host.

Her job is a media face job, her politics are fair game.
She's not Plumber, a math teacher or football player

Actually I don't think it will matter but I'm going to try once more. Let's say you choose to burn a flag and you post it on youtube. Pretty certain you'll get a reaction. If your boss sees it or someone brings it to his/her attention, there would likely be consequences dependent on his/her point-of-view, customer relations, etc.

It's not always social media, it could be that you belong to some organization and some busybody runs and tells neighbors, friends, or employer. Again, there may be reactions-some good, some bad. We don't even need to make one up, there's nearly always someone that will find fault with this or that.

Now something could happen that would change your life, but not so likely. Most folks aren't watching you or I or anyone else all that closely. You'd have to go out of your way to not only do something 'offensive' to someone, but likely also have to do something that would bring attention to what you did. Then someone with authority would have to react strongly. Unlikely.

Yes, celebrities face more repercussions when they don't consider the reactions they may get. Well that comes from the fact that they are USING their celebrity to bring attention and they get it. While in favor, they often make the big, big bucks that someone like us can only dream about. Now in all honesty, I don't find myself using empathy on the football player or Griffin, or even the more numerous that get tons of kudos for raising money for charities or other good causes. You or I go door to door to collect for cancer or something else, on a good day, unless lucky, going to raise less than a couple hundred. Get a celebrity to hit a phone for call ins for an hour? Thousands, if not tens of thousands. A concert? Oh that's big bucks, something which the average folks will never be able to do.

[revelarts]

Rodman was fined 50k or saying all there is in Utah is a bunch of mormons. i thought kapernick just didn't get a new contract. i didn't think he was fired. the problem i have is if keapernick has said stuff that was anti gay he would be suspended. but not for his antics during the national anthem.
I sorta get that
I have problem with being fined for anti-homosexual comments, or comments about a lot of mormon being in Utah. Last i checked that's true. or people's antic with the anthem.
NONE of it should be "punished" privately or by the gov't IMO since it has ZERO to do with PLAYING BALL.



Actually I don't think it will matter but I'm going to try once more. Let's say you choose to burn a flag and you post it on youtube. Pretty certain you'll get a reaction. If your boss sees it or someone brings it to his/her attention, there would likely be consequences dependent on his/her point-of-view, customer relations, etc.

It's not always social media, it could be that you belong to some organization and some busybody runs and tells neighbors, friends, or employer. Again, there may be reactions-some good, some bad. We don't even need to make one up, there's nearly always someone that will find fault with this or that.

Now something could happen that would change your life, but not so likely. Most folks aren't watching you or I or anyone else all that closely. You'd have to go out of your way to not only do something 'offensive' to someone, but likely also have to do something that would bring attention to what you did. Then someone with authority would have to react strongly. Unlikely.

Yes, celebrities face more repercussions when they don't consider the reactions they may get. Well that comes from the fact that they are USING their celebrity to bring attention and they get it. While in favor, they often make the big, big bucks that someone like us can only dream about. Now in all honesty, I don't find myself using empathy on the football player or Griffin, or even the more numerous that get tons of kudos for raising money for charities or other good causes. You or I go door to door to collect for cancer or something else, on a good day, unless lucky, going to raise less than a couple hundred. Get a celebrity to hit a phone for call ins for an hour? Thousands, if not tens of thousands. A concert? Oh that's big bucks, something which the average folks will never be able to do.

Kath sorry, I'm not sure what you think i'm missing.
YES, people have "REACTIONS" it doesn't mean people can't perform their JOBS in most cases.
If a person's REACTION to my Faith or Politics is RAGE and they are my boss. But i'm installing Air conditioners better than anyone on the team. Then WHOSE the one with the problem?
Is it me or the BOSS that is trying to make my personal views an issue on a job that has ZERO to do with my personal views on poltics or religion?

I'm going to say something here and i'm not trying to be offensive. and i apologize ahead of time for it. But in my experience it's true.
I've found that women have more of problem with this kind of thing than men do.
I've asked 2 women that i've worked with that... if they needed vital help on a project from someone they did NOT like, if they would ask that person for help. They told me without hesitation "NO, they would not."., (reaction) and looked at me as if i should KNOW better. OF COURSE they'd let the project fail or miss deadline. Maybe i'm wierd but I DO NOT get that. I've worked with other women that weren't comfortable working or giving honest opinions about work with me until they "liked me".
So if you're trying to get me understand that, I doubt that it will happen. Getting a job done whether or not i LIKE the people next to me is the way i tend to think. IMO Getting the job done often has little to do with being friends, as long as we're on the same page.
Guys can be just a stubborn if they want to be but i've found it easier for men to work around "dislikeing" each other. So that the "reactions" don't bog down the work so much. of course it's BETTER if everyone has the SAME opinions and taste and compatible temperments and loves each other but what planet is that going to happen on?

So in general Similarly In a lot of cases I don't care what the opinions, politics or religion of many people who do various jobs for me, from the plumber to the actor.
My main question is "ARE THEY DOING A GOOD JOB?".
But If other people's "reactions" causes someone's PERFORMANCE or WORK to suffer, OK, that may be a problem.
But people's REACTION shouldn't dictate whether or not they keep a position they are FULLY competent at IMO.
As long as that Job isn't primarily about keeping the 'most people' happy and keep people NOT reacting.
or the job isn't directly/indirectly employed in politics or religion.


Kath we may just disagree here.
But again I'm not sure what point you think i'm missing though.
Yes people have BAD "REACTIONS", so what.
sorry.

[Kathianne]

I sorta get that
I have problem with being fined for anti-homosexual comments, or comments about a lot of mormon being in Utah. Last i checked that's true. or people's antic with the anthem.
NONE of it should be "punished" privately or by the gov't IMO since it has ZERO to do with PLAYING BALL.




Kath sorry, I'm not sure what you think i'm missing.
YES, people have "REACTIONS" it doesn't mean people can't perform their JOBS in most cases.
If a person's REACTION to my Faith or Politics is RAGE and they are my boss. But i'm installing Air conditioners better than anyone on the team. Then WHOSE the one with the problem?
Is it me or the BOSS that is trying to make my personal views an issue on a job that has ZERO to do with my personal views on poltics or religion?

I'm going to say something here and i'm not trying to be offensive. and i apologize ahead of time for it. But in my experience it's true.
I've found that women have more of problem with this kind of thing than men do.
I've asked 2 women that i've worked with that... if they needed vital help on a project from someone they did NOT like, if they would ask that person for help. They told me without hesitation "NO, they would not."., (reaction) and looked at me as if i should KNOW better. OF COURSE they'd let the project fail or miss deadline. Maybe i'm wierd but I DO NOT get that. I've worked with other women that weren't comfortable working or giving honest opinions about work with me until they "liked me".
So if you're trying to get me understand that, I doubt that it will happen. Getting a job done whether or not i LIKE the people next to me is the way i tend to think. IMO Getting the job done often has little to do with being friends, as long as we're on the same page.
Guys can be just a stubborn if they want to be but i've found it easier for men to work around "dislikeing" each other. So that the "reactions" don't bog down the work so much. of course it's BETTER if everyone has the SAME opinions and taste and compatible temperments and loves each other but what planet is that going to happen on?

So in general Similarly In a lot of cases I don't care what the opinions, politics or religion of many people who do various jobs for me, from the plumber to the actor.
My main question is "ARE THEY DOING A GOOD JOB?".
But If other people's "reactions" causes someone's PERFORMANCE or WORK to suffer, OK, that may be a problem.
But people's REACTION shouldn't dictate whether or not they keep a position they are FULLY competent at IMO.
As long as that Job isn't primarily about keeping the 'most people' happy and keep people NOT reacting.
or the job isn't directly/indirectly employed in politics or religion.


Kath we may just disagree here.
But again I'm not sure what point you think i'm missing though.
Yes people have BAD "REACTIONS", so what.
sorry.

No doubt we disagree on the topic. I do agree with your observation though regarding working 'in groups' with women. It really is the one downside to teaching. Not only that, but men in teaching are not all that different than the women, so I just hate 'groups.' ;)

The thing I don't think you are getting is that sometimes the actions caused by opinions, aren't dependent on performance. IF your boss personally disagrees strongly enough, AFTER you go out of your way to bring it to their attention, you may have a problem. Even if he doesn't personally care, if he thinks or KNOWS that the customers will, you will have a problem.

You may call it 'mob rule' or something else, but it's just the way businesses work. The team the football player was with didn't seem to have a problem-there were a few others that followed if memory serves. Other sports had athletes that also acted in concert. Notice though that it was the original that kept the eye of the public? When the season was over, when the ticket and commercial values were tallied, when his performance was weighed, he was cut loose. No other team has picked him up.

[darin]

No doubt we disagree on the topic. I do agree with your observation though regarding working 'in groups' with women. It really is the one downside to teaching. Not only that, but men in teaching are not all that different than the women, so I just hate 'groups.' ;)

The thing I don't think you are getting is that sometimes the actions caused by opinions, aren't dependent on performance. IF your boss personally disagrees strongly enough, AFTER you go out of your way to bring it to their attention, you may have a problem. Even if he doesn't personally care, if he thinks or KNOWS that the customers will, you will have a problem.

You may call it 'mob rule' or something else, but it's just the way businesses work. The team the football player was with didn't seem to have a problem-there were a few others that followed if memory serves. Other sports had athletes that also acted in concert. Notice though that it was the original that kept the eye of the public? When the season was over, when the ticket and commercial values were tallied, when his performance was weighed, he was cut loose. No other team has picked him up.

Suggest saving your time. You cannot reason someone out of a position they have reached irrationally.

[revelarts]

No doubt we disagree on the topic. I do agree with your observation though regarding working 'in groups' with women. It really is the one downside to teaching. Not only that, but men in teaching are not all that different than the women, so I just hate 'groups.' ;)

phew, yep.



The thing I don't think you are getting is that sometimes the actions caused by opinions, aren't dependent on performance. IF your boss personally disagrees strongly enough, AFTER you go out of your way to bring it to their attention, you may have a problem. Even if he doesn't personally care, if he thinks or KNOWS that the customers will, you will have a problem.
that's true.
If I were Muslim living and working installing air conditioners in a town for 20 years and few knew I was Muslim until I announced I was helping establish a mosque. And the town tragically had a "terrorist" murder of some kind. I suspect A lot of the "good Americans":rolleyes: in the town would have IRRATIONAL fears and may not want an outspoken "Muzzie" installing Air Conditioner "BOMBS" at their homes or city buildings anymore.
And it may affect the biz. yes I get that.
Part of My point is that "REACTION" is OVER the TOP and IRRATIONAL and UN-AMERICAN.
It has nothing to do with the performance of the job.
So yes the Reaction can affect the income of the biz. but the Reaction is generally UNCALLED for.
Based on personal views that have zero to do with the work the person has done WELL for decades.


You may call it 'mob rule' or something else, but it's just the way businesses work...
Sure It's the way some businesses work. But thankfully some businesses will ride out the "bad press" if they think thy can. And if the employee is valuable and the company knows the MOB'S/Customer's/Public's reaction is unwarranted since it has ZERO to do with the product or service. And if they believe the crowd's REACTION is likely to be temporary.
I think that's the better path. A path more in line with our American Ideals of freedom and living in a country where people have vastly divergent views that they shouldn't have to KEEP HIDDEN for fear of extreme loss or "reactions".

Some good American's use to tar and feather people whose politics or religion they didn't agree with. thankfully that "reaction" isn't thought to be "just the way things work" anymore. While ending people's careers is still deemed OK.





SaveSave

[Kathianne]

Rev, we both agree that there's discrimination and prejudice in this and likely every other country. In this case though, I think you are mislaying the blame here. It's not a function of 'discrimination' regarding the injection of political opinion into business that creates the reaction against certain folks such as the football player, it's the misuse of their celebrity and the opportunities they have because of their celebrity to make their voices/actions louder than others.

In his case the reaction was overwhelmingly against him and the business (the NFL). In other cases it may be positive-those loud voices/actions. See Stevie Wonder's comment the other day or Gary Sinise's reputation. Granted the message of those pro-country are not as focused on by the media as those against-again a function of 'crime sells.'

[revelarts]

Rev, we both agree that there's discrimination and prejudice in this and likely every other country. In this case though, I think you are mislaying the blame here. It's not a function of 'discrimination' regarding the injection of political opinion into business that creates the reaction against certain folks such as the football player, it's the misuse of their celebrity and the opportunities they have because of their celebrity to make their voices/actions louder than others.
Did i say anything about prejudice? 99.9% Americans aren't prejudice at all, haven't been since the 1970s i understand.

But a reaction that puts people out of careers whether it's born of prejudice or purely of a difference of opinion politically or religion-wise.
Whether it's amplified by celebrity or it's a local situation via the grape vine.
IMO it's still UN-American to punish people's careers.
If the private sector does it or the Gov't.

You say it's the MIS-use of Celebrity. Well ok it's only MIS-Use if we don't like the opinion or don't like the reactions.
You say it's the MIS-use of Celebrity. So is it somehow UNFAIR that they have a louder mic to speak? But If they've earned that celebrity via their work don't they DESERVE to use it any way they please?

Tim Tebow got powerful 'REACTIONS' for painting John 3:16 on his face and bowing to pray on the field.
Was that MIS-Use of celebrity?

Celebrity is just a vehicle, not a cause. It's the opinions that are being punished that i'm taking issue with Kath.
College football coaches have a certain amount of Celebrity. As long as they aren't promoting criminal activities their political opinions shouldn't jeopardize their jobs either IMO.



In his case the reaction was overwhelmingly against him and the business (the NFL).
Whether or not the reactions we're financially overwhelming to the overall business of the NFL in the long run i think is debatable. Was it even overwhelming as PR issue? seems to me that the NFL could have smartly played up the "Patriotic" opinions of other players and the league as a counter. But I don't own the NFL. ANd How much Customer/mob "reaction" they want to bear is up to them.
Again all I'm saying is that it's NOT Aligned with the best of AMERICAN IDEALS for the crowd or the gov't to punish others for opinions about the GOV"T.

I don't think you're saying that
"YES, it is very American and a good thing to punish people for opinions that have nothing to to with their jobs,
ESPECIALLY if they are celebrities who shoot their mouths off to much."
.
Seems you're saying more "well THAT'S THE WAY IT IS".
fine OK. yes, it's like that.
I'm saying it's NOT GOOD.

[Kathianne]

Did i say anything about prejudice? 99.9% Americans aren't prejudice at all, haven't been since the 1970s i understand.

But a reaction that puts people out of careers whether it's born of prejudice or purely of a difference of opinion politically or religion-wise.
Whether it's amplified by celebrity or it's a local situation via the grape vine.
IMO it's still UN-American to punish people's careers.
If the private sector does it or the Gov't.

You say it's the MIS-use of Celebrity. Well ok it's only MIS-Use if we don't like the opinion or don't like the reactions.
You say it's the MIS-use of Celebrity. So is it somehow UNFAIR that they have a louder mic to speak? But If they've earned that celebrity via their work don't they DESERVE to use it any way they please?

Tim Tebow got powerful 'REACTIONS' for painting John 3:16 on his face and bowing to pray on the field.
Was that MIS-Use of celebrity?

Celebrity is just a vehicle, not a cause. It's the opinions that are being punished that i'm taking issue with Kath.
College football coaches have a certain amount of Celebrity. As long as they aren't promoting criminal activities their political opinions shouldn't jeopardize their jobs either IMO.



Whether or not the reactions we're financially overwhelming to the overall business of the NFL in the long run i think is debatable. Was it even overwhelming as PR issue? seems to me that the NFL could have smartly played up the "Patriotic" opinions of other players and the league as a counter. But I don't own the NFL. ANd How much Customer/mob "reaction" they want to bear is up to them.
Again all I'm saying is that it's NOT Aligned with the best of AMERICAN IDEALS for the crowd or the gov't to punish others for opinions about the GOV"T.

I don't think you're saying that
"YES, it is very American and a good thing to punish people for opinions that have nothing to to with their jobs,
ESPECIALLY if they are celebrities who shoot their mouths off to much."
.
Seems you're saying more "well THAT'S THE WAY IT IS".
fine OK. yes, it's like that.
I'm saying it's NOT GOOD.


Actually perhaps we're both only hearing what we want. I never said 'misusing' of anything, I was saying their choice to use the platform celebrity easily provides.

I used other examples of the extremes regular joes would have to take to get the type of coverage. It's possible, but you've got to work for it.

I'm not trying to curtail anyone's right to exercise their first amendment rights, but no one promised the outcome would be or should be consequence free. Those consequences may be positive or negative.

[revelarts]

Actually perhaps we're both only hearing what we want. I never said 'misusing' of anything, I was saying their choice to use the platform celebrity easily provides.
to a point probably. But I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, It's just what i got from your previous.
QUOTE=Kathianne... it's the misuse of their celebrity and the opportunities they have because of their celebrity to make their voices/actions louder than others. ....





I used other examples of the extremes regular joes would have to take to get the type of coverage. It's possible, but you've got to work for it.
True. but it's not wrong to use it.



I'm not trying to curtail anyone's right to exercise their first amendment rights, but no one promised the outcome would be or should be consequence free. Those consequences may be positive or negative.
There is no promise that's for sure.
I'd just like people to at least aim for the ideals we SAY American stands for.
Especially as we "defend" the honor of the Flag, Anthem Gov't or Nation.

[Kathianne]

to a point probably. But I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, It's just what i got from your previous.
QUOTE=Kathianne... it's the misuse of their celebrity and the opportunities they have because of their celebrity to make their voices/actions louder than others. ....




True. but it's not wrong to use it.


There is no promise that's for sure.
I'd just like people to at least aim for the ideals we SAY American stands for.
Especially as we "defend" the honor of the Flag, Anthem Gov't or Nation.


The ideals of the US do not aim for the rights to be consequence free. Indeed, the founders understood consequences, as their inclusion of defining treason in the constitution exemplifies.

There are consequences for all of our actions, some are more profound than others.

[revelarts]

The ideals of the US do not aim for the rights to be consequence free.
well For the most part that's Exactly what it means.
we have a right to own guns.
the ownership should have no consequences. Only the MIS-Use should.

the right of peaceful assembly.
there should be ZERO consequences for it.

the right to practice your religion.
there should be ZERO consequences for it.

Free Speech, by it's nature, entails "consequences".
typically the consequences are Free speech that COUNTERS the 1st.
It shouldn't rise to the lost of careers.
That's NOT part of the Constitution... or the intent of the founders



Indeed, the founders understood consequences, as their inclusion of defining treason in the constitution exemplifies.

Treason?
I'm not sure where to go with that.
I'm not sure anyone's actions in either of our examples rise anywhere CLOSE to that level.


There are consequences for all of our actions, some are more profound than others.

Agreed, and it'b be nice if we encouraged the BEST most rational reactions,
reactions that promoted our Freedoms. Rather than displayed our Strong EMOTIONS.
And that Free speech was used to COUNTER opinions that are unwelcomed rather than
using and justifying suppression of speech and punishment of speakers by various means.
Seems like overkill... and UnAmerican.
that's just my take.

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/dc/4f/d5/dc4fd507ff35f3b43cc9586c8837ca65.jpg

[Kathianne]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/dc/4f/d5/dc4fd507ff35f3b43cc9586c8837ca65.jpg


That was just my point, a person sitting quietly during the anthem will more than likely be ignored-black, white, brown, yellow.

You seem to want anyone to be able to 'protest' which I agree with, but you are in fact arguing to deny others their right to respond to the protest, or am I missing something? In the case of the football player, he wasn't 'supported' in his position, especially when he responded to questions from the press, (again, celebrity was part of his problem). There may have been some idiots that threatened him, but for the most part the responses were to boo him or more effectively, imo, to stop going to or watching the games. In fact, the response was directed against the NFL and not the individual.

[Abbey Marie]

Rev, the 1st Amendment guarantees our right to speech and its aggressive cousin, protest.
It does not guarantee, nor should it, the right to others' good opinion of that speech.

Just as Capitalism should give us equal opportunity, but no guarantee of equal outcome.

[Kathianne]

revelarts

I may be off here, but I think this appears related:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/01/tim-tebow-tim-tebow-mets-baseball-july4/


Tim Tebow’s Unlikely Quest Moves To The Next LevelANDREW MALCOLMPosted at 1:01 pm on July 1, 2017

This is a holiday weekend update on Tim Tebow’s quest.

Full disclosure: Never met him. Hate the Denver Broncos (Sorry, Kevin) even when Tebow starred there and took them to the playoffs. But I love the man’s quest and the way the devout Christian quietly but consistently lives it.

Most especially, I admire the way Tim Tebow infects other people’s lives positively with his. “I’m blessed because of my faith,” he says, “that I don’t have to worry about the future because I know who holds my future.”


After being dropped by Denver and other NFL teams, the athletic young man set out to re-try baseball after too many years to have the best chance.


On the surface, the Heisman Trophy winner seeks to make baseball’s big leagues. The N.Y. Mets signed him last year, sent him down to the lowest of the low minor leagues, the Class A Columbia Fireflies in the South Atlantic League. His first at-bat, a two-run homer to left. It wasn’t that good all the time — on the field.


But off the field, ah, that was always good.


Here’s this huge 29-year-old adult man, a two-time NCAA football champion quarterback with the Florida Gators, who played — and prayed — on national TV. And he’s chasing the same long-shot dream as 20-year-old teammates. Riding the same bus through the night to away games, sleeping on the floor, encouraging others, working as hard as everyone, maybe harder on things like batting.


Then something strange happened. Attendance soared, even for away games way up in New Jersey. They couldn’t make No. 15 Tebow shirts fast enough. People drove long distances just to be around him. It certainly wasn’t always his hitting or fielding.


J.J. Cooper over at Baseball America (http://www.baseballamerica.com/business/tebow-effect-paid-off-for-sally-league-clubs/#3PsPq8O1COyIs293.97) cleverly studied the 14-team league’s average attendance this year and found crowds much larger for Tebow games, sometimes twice the size of non-Tebow games. He estimates the son of missionaries who started his children’s charity before college graduation brought the league a minimum extra $1.6 million this year.


The attraction was Tebow, the way he wears fame humbly, talks respectfully to everyone, especially youngsters clamoring, not always politely, for his autograph or just to bask briefly in his gaze. The look in the youngsters’ eyes. And their parents’. And on the faces of the special-needs kids he brings to games or organizes proms for.


Some sportswriters seek to show how much they know by dismissing Tebow’s MLB outlook. Actually, they’re revealing how much they don’t know about the Tebow story.


Tebow got promoted this week up to the St. Lucie Mets, owned by the mother team. So now, Florida State League fans can see him. And the Mets will benefit directly from increased ticket sales.


I don’t know about you, but I am sick of the behavior of many pro athletes (not all, but enough), even some collegiate players. Their spoiled entitlement, even law-breaking. I can no longer watch an entire NFL game. Canceled my NFL Sunday Ticket this year. The showboating, the taunting, like juvenile perp walks. Give me just highlights. Spare me the self-promoting strutting after one lousy sack.


So, when someone like Tebow comes along playing the one-time national past-time the best he can and seeking to improve through disappointments and failures without whining, he sticks out for that rare substance in modern American life called Decency. And Charity. Humility. Manners.


Imagine in this day and age having someone in public life to cheer for, not against, a living role model to point out to children. Free of worry for what he might do or say tonight that would sully tomorrow’s news.


This is not big news. But it is important news: And what’s encouraging is that, despite the cheesy public behavior of some, so many Americans can still see and seek the opposite. They seem to have found it in No. 15.





Sports celebrities are often referred to as 'heroes' when often, imo, it's not appropriate. Michael Jordan's discipline for instance, is something to admire, something to shoot for, (pun intended), but a life hero?

There are a few that come to mind though: Arthur Ashe, Roberto Clemente, Pat Tillman, Jackie Robinson, and Jesse Owens come to mind.

[Black Diamond]

I have to give the rev credit, though. He doesn't want people fired for any political reason.

[revelarts]

That was just my point, a person sitting quietly during the anthem will more than likely be ignored-black, white, brown, yellow.

You seem to want anyone to be able to 'protest' which I agree with, but you are in fact arguing to deny others their right to respond to the protest, or am I missing something? In the case of the football player, he wasn't 'supported' in his position, especially when he responded to questions from the press, (again, celebrity was part of his problem). There may have been some idiots that threatened him, but for the most part the responses were to boo him or more effectively, imo, to stop going to or watching the games. In fact, the response was directed against the NFL and not the individual.
People have a right to respond, I just think it's UNAmerican to DESIRE that people be FIRED for political speech.
People can Call him Names makes political cartoons against him, burn his jerseys, mock him, Assume the worse of his character. Ignore the real issue he's trying to address,

But I have to say, attacking the NFL seems OFF to me in general as a response.
It started out as ONE player. and the action was not even part of the GAME. And as you say his other comments were OFF the field. The overall "reaction" seems out of proportion to the catalyst to me. Like when a Spouse goes BALLISTIC when you commit some small offense.

As i mentioned before it seems that few on any side can stand commentary that they don't agree with being aired in public... especially by celebrities.

The Dixie Chicks got some backlash for NOT liking Bush.
"shut up and Sing" was a saying going around for a while.
At least there SOME didn't want them to QUIT singing... to loose thier careers... and as far as i know people didn't boycott the country music industry or thier label, because one singing group had politics their fan base didn't like. (maybe they did boycott the label i don't remember... i hope not.)

But there are a thousand and one things that people can do in reaction to celebrities views on politics. But I don't like the idea of trying to get people FIRED for them. UNLESS the views are criminal or borderline or promoting criminal actions.

Freedom of political and religious Speech is a foundational American Ideal.
IF people LOVE America and the "freedoms" many have died to defend, it seems to me sort of hypocritical maybe for people to try to punish those peacefully exercising their rights by trying to end their livelihoods.

But hey, It's not Illegal to do it. So it happens.
Careers and jobs ended and people WELL punished for speaking their minds.

I just don't think that's cool AT ALL.

[revelarts]

Here are a few NON-celebrity instances of people threatened or fired from their jobs for their political opinions.

Boss says employees who agree with Trump's rhetoric should resign | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/boss-says-employees-who-agree-with-trumps-rhetoric-should-resign.html)
GrubHub co-founder warns Trump-supporting employees after election (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/11/you-have-no-place-here-grubhub-co-founder-warns-trump-supporting-employees-after-election/)

Voted For Obama? You're Fired!
Voted For Obama? You're Fired! - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/voted-for-obama-youre-fired-2009-10)

8 bosses who screwed their employees after Obama’s reelection
8 bosses who screwed their employees after Obama’s reelection - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/8_bosses_who_screwed_their_employees_after_obamas_ reelection/)

Can Your Boss Threaten to Fire You If You Don't Vote for Romney?
Can Your Boss Threaten to Fire You If You Don't Vote for Romney? - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/can-your-boss-threaten-to-fire-you-if-you-dont-vote-for-romney/263709/)

Billionaire CEO Threatens To Fire Employees If Obama Wins
https://thinkprogress.org/billionair...296#.4il0kuzgw (https://thinkprogress.org/billionaire-ceo-threatens-to-fire-employees-if-obama-wins-37ee4d37c296#.4il0kuzgw)

.....Lynne Gobbell of Moulton, Ala., who on Sept. 9 was fired from her job at Enviromate (http://www.lawrencealabama.com/pages/ch/directy.html), a company that makes housing insulation, for driving to work with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker in the rear windshield of her Chevy Lumina. The person who did the firing was Phil Geddes, who owns the company and is an enthusiastic Bush supporter. (Although Gobbell hasn't done any proselytizing for Kerry at Enviromate, Geddes distributed a flyer to all Enviromate employees explaining why they should vote for Bush.)

.....
"In 2011, Megan Geller, a waitress at an Outback Steakhouse in Illinois, said that she was fired for wearing a brightly colored bracelet with the motto, “Don’t Tread On Me,” which is used by the Tea Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier); her mother got her the bracelet at a Tea Party event."

.....
Zipp Stripped at Playgirl; Female Nudie Mag No Place for a Bush Lover (http://reason.com/blog/2005/03/21/zipp-stripped-at-playgirl-fema)
"Hello Drudge,
"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine....


.....
But when one of their own, PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel, was on the receiving end of backlash over the weekend for a reported $1.25 million to the Trump campaign and various pro-Trump Super PACs, many took to Twitter to fight back.
The donation, which was first reported by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-trump.html), was met with outrage by some, who called for Thiel to be fired from Y Combinator, the startup incubator where he's a partner.
Ellen Pao, a former interim chief executive of Reddit who is now working to tackle diversity issues in tech at Project Include, announced Monday that the organization would no longer work with Y Combinator.


...

I think it's Unamerican,
and NOT cool. no matter which side does it, whether or not the people are poor or Rich or famous or not. If a boss does it on her own for her own personal reasons or if they do it because others are making noise.
Still not cool.