Free speech covers religious speech.

[MissileMan]

ALso no1 in your example. A person who did nothing but preach is obviously not doing their job, and would be fired for that reason.

You've almost got it. A person who is preaching at work is not doing their job, unless they are a minister. What amount of time not doing the job you are being paid for do you think your employer has to accept in order to allow you freedom of expression?

 

[no1tovote4]

Regardless of if it offends or not, as the employer, I have a right (I live in Nevada, which is a right to work state) to fire anybody for any reason. If somebody is disrupting work, regardless of how they are disrupting it, I will get rid of them. That doesn't mean I am anti-Christian, it just means that getting work done is more important. That is why they have a job!

Exactly. A private or public business that didn't fire somebody for this disruptive pattern would likely be sued for not protecting the other employee from harrassment, as I said before rightly so.

 

[dilloduck]

The standard is "reasonable person". A reasonable person would not be offended by my listening to the Beelzebubshist radio station with my headphones on, nor with pamphlets available at my desk to pick up as you wish. You have a right to free expression, just not a right to harrass others with your free expression.

ok whose gonna draw the "reasonable " line then ? The majority or what?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You've almost got it. A person who is preaching at work is not doing their job, unless they are a minister. What amount of time not doing the job you are being paid for do you think your employer has to accept in order to allow you freedom of expression?

The same amount allowed to discussion of sit coms, basketball games, and what a nazi the boss is, I suppose.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Get aware and realize that some things employers do to protect themselves legally are neither right, nor constitutional, and may be merely a symptom of a society gone awry.

We're not talking about me anyway. Quit being such a little follower and think for a second.

I am aware of that...
I accept the job knowing all of this, they are within their legal right
to fire me. Plain and simple.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Exactly. A private or public business that didn't fire somebody for this disruptive pattern would likely be sued for not protecting the other employee from harrassment, as I said before rightly so.

This is extreme and you know it. Someone discussing submarine sandwiches with this much zeal should be fired. We're discussing content. And in too many places ANY christian content is deemed offensive BY REACTIONARY LIBS. Quit being ridiculous and step into the sensible zone.

 

[no1tovote4]

ok whose gonna draw the "reasonable " line then ? The majority or what?

That is taught in law school, but generally it is a majority. If almost nobody would be offended by something then it is not "reasonable" if most everybody could get offended by something then it is "resonable". This same line is drawn with sexual harrassment as well.

 

[no1tovote4]

This is extreme and you know it. Someone discussing submarine sandwiches with this much zeal should be fired. We're discussing content. And in too many places ANY christian content is deemed offensive BY REACTIONARY LIBS. Quit being ridiculous and step into the sensible zone.

Ah, but any content would not be offensive to a reasonable person at all and would not even fit in the context of the discussion.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

The same amount allowed to discussion of sit coms, basketball games, and what a nazi the boss is, I suppose.

See only a person who's upset about not being able to talk about religion
would complain about that. But if they did, the work place would be obligated just as much to take action.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That is taught in law school, but generally it is a majority. If almost nobody would be offended by something then it is not "reasonable" if most everybody could get offended by something then it is "resonable". This same line is drawn with sexual harrassment as well.

So a majority decides what free speech is permissible? WHere? In a court of law that is not the case. And in the workplace like joker and ff1 said, they decide.

Funny how much you guys twist logic for some imaginary poon you're never gonna get.

 

[freeandfun1]

That is taught in law school, but generally it is a majority. If almost nobody would be offended by something then it is not "reasonable" if most everybody could get offended by something then it is "resonable". This same line is drawn with sexual harrassment as well.

I think that is problem people have though no1. It should be the majority, but more and more these days, it is the minority that is setting the standards.

 

[dilloduck]

Freedom of speech amounts to one thing on this board and that is you are allowed to say anything the owner of this site says you can say. If he doesn't like it--he bans you--simple.

Happens in life too----say what you want but do you really want to pay for the consequences? The Constitution has done it's best to define free speech but in reality, money and power will determine what you can get away with.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

See only a person who's upset about not being able to talk about religion
would complain about that. But if they did, the work place would be obligated just as much to take action.

I'm saying religious speech should be afforded the same tolerance as these other topics. The question was asked. I'm not complaining. You can't think straight, man.

 

[no1tovote4]

ok whose gonna draw the "reasonable " line then ? The majority or what?

As I said it is a legal term taught in law school. The reasonable line would be drawn by the Judge or the Jury of the lawsuit if one was filed. They must determine if it is reasonable to expect a person may be offended by this action. In my case I made it obvious, I wanted it clear at what level rtwng expected his freedom of Expression to protect him.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Freedom of speech amounts to one thing on this board and that is you are allowed to say anything the owner of this site says you can say. If he doesn't like it--he bans you--simple.

Happens in life too----say what you want but do you really want to pay for the consequences? The Constitution has done it's best to define free speech but in reality, money and power will determine what you can get away with.

Well said...
Nobody says it's right, that's just the way it works.

 

[MissileMan]

The same amount allowed to discussion of sit coms, basketball games, and what a nazi the boss is, I suppose.

It may be fodder for another thread, but I've always believed in a day's pay for a day's work. It's an integrity thing. Two guys standing beside the watercooler with their thumbs up their ass chatting about Kobe and Shaq are just as counterproductive as anything else we've been discussing here.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It may be fodder for another thread, but I've always believed in a day's pay for a day's work. It's an integrity thing. Two guys standing beside the watercooler with their thumbs up their ass chatting about Kobe and Shaq are just as counterproductive as anything else we've been discussing here.

Ok. But this is a different topic. THis is "How much should people chat at work?"

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I'm saying religious speech should be afforded the same tolerance as these other topics. The question was asked. I'm not complaining. You can't think straight, man.

I can think straight...
To put religion in that categorie is not accurate.
No one fights a war over their favorite basketball team.

 

[no1tovote4]

So a majority decides what free speech is permissible? WHere? In a court of law that is not the case. And in the workplace like joker and ff1 said, they decide.

Funny how much you guys twist logic for some imaginary poon you're never gonna get.

I don't even know what you are talking about and really I don't care. My scenarios and questions were to get from you the level at which you expected your free speech or freedom of expression to protect you. It sounds like you are at a reasonable level and that your speech would be protected.

 

[dilloduck]

As I said it is a legal term taught in law school. The reasonable line would be drawn by the Judge or the Jury of the lawsuit if one was filed. They must determine if it is reasonable to expect a person may be offended by this action. In my case I made it obvious, I wanted it clear at what level rtwng expected his freedom of Expression to protect him.

No judge or jury on this board----the owner TELLS you what is ok----do you have enough money to fight for your right to speak freely if you choose to take an issue to court----your rights might be limited by your wallet.