Woman fired from Century 21 for expressing Trump support (rudely)

[Marener]

On what? You're suggesting I have the right to do anything I want to you if you are in my restaurant.

Depends on if you’re breaking any laws, for one. You can’t punch her in the face. You can’t steal from her.

But you can record her and that recording is the property of the restaurant.

The employees of the restaurant did, this what makes the restaurant liable.

it doesn't matter that they told the truth of her actions, the employees of that restaurant took an action that lead to harm to her.

Nope. They exercised free speech by telling a truthful story about her actions.

But not to release the information with intent to harm her.

Interesting where your line of thought is going though. So according to you, if I take an action, that may be within my legal right, if I take that action knowing it could bring harm to you, either financially or even physically....I'm completely free and clear of any responsibility.

That....is interesting.

If you have a legal right to take an action, then it doesn’t matter if it brings harm to me. That’s what a legal right means.

The restaurant has a right to free speech. The fact that she was harmed by that speech is not sufficient to override that right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Depends on if you’re breaking any laws, for one. You can’t punch her in the face. You can’t steal from her.

But you can record her and that recording is the property of the restaurant.

Nope. They exercised free speech by telling a truthful story about her actions.

If you have a legal right to take an action, then it doesn’t matter if it brings harm to me. That’s what a legal right means.

The restaurant has a right to free speech. The fact that she was harmed by that speech is not sufficient to override that right.

Youre right to free speech doesn't include the right to bring harm to other people.

Also there's this:

What Is the Ohio Law on Recording Conversations in a Legal Case?

Can you record a conversation in Ohio without the other person's consent? Find out the Ohio law on recording conversations.

www.mmdefense.law

Per Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2933.51, Ohio is a one-party consent state. This means that under Ohio law, only one person involved in a conversation needs to consent to its recording. If you participate in a conversation, you can legally record it without notifying the other party. This applies to in-person, telephone, and digital conversations like video chats.

However, this law does not grant blanket permission to record all conversations indiscriminately. The recording must be for a legitimate reason, and the person recording the conversation must be an actual participant. Recording conversations in which you are not a participant or when neither party has consented can lead to serious legal consequences.

Legitimate Purpose​

You must record the conversation for a legitimate reason, such as documenting evidence for a legal case or protecting your legal rights.

Purpose Matters: Recording a conversation for an illegal purpose, such as blackmail or harassment, is prohibited regardless of consent.

Ohio only requires 1 party consent if BOTH parties are willing participants in a conversation, and it must be for a legitimate reason.

If the purpose of the recording constitutes harassment, which this could be, if the employees intent was to cause harm to this person, it is not legal

I don't believe you can, in Ohio, record someone without their consent, if you are not engaged in a conversation with them.

 

[Marener]

Youre right to free speech doesn't include the right to bring harm to other people.

Also there's this:

Yes, free speech can include speech that harms another person.

Ohio law on recording conversations can’t even apply since the security footage isn’t even recording a conversation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, free speech can include speech that harms another person.

Ohio law on recording conversations can’t even apply since the security footage isn’t even recording a conversation.

Yes, free speech can include speech that harms another person.

So her speech was free speech then?

 

[Marener]

So her speech was free speech then?

Yes! Of course it was. I would never suggest otherwise.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes! Of course it was. I would never suggest otherwise.

So the restaurant retaliated against her free speech.

I was actually mistaken about the recording for some reason I thought it was the employee that had recorded the video on his cell phone and posted it. Not sure where I got that.

So, it was tbr restaurant that released her image from their cctv footage? Again, if that is the case, then they did it with malicious intent, in hopes of doxxing her and causing some action to be taken against her


As much as you want to believe it, you can't post things about people if you know it will cause them harm. By them releasing her image, she can claim harassment.

 

[Marener]

So the restaurant retaliated against her free speech.

As is their right.

So, it was tbr restaurant that released her image from their cctv footage? Again, if that is the case, then they did it with malicious intent, in hopes of doxxing her and causing some action to be taken against her

As is their right.

As much as you want to believe it, you can't post things about people if you know it will cause them harm. By them releasing her image, she can claim harassment.

You absolutely can, especially since it as true.

 

[Crepitus]

Good for Century 21.

Century 21 Realtor expresses her Trump love by writing "I hope President Trump deports you" to her Mexican restaurant waiter on the credit card receipt.

Stephanie Lovins has now been fired from Century 21

Realty Company Dumps Ohio Woman For Writing 'I Hope Trump Deports You' On Mexican Restaurant Receipt

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The CENTURY 21 brand does not condone acts of discrimination and is taking this situation seriously. We have looked into it and the agent in question is no longer associated with the brand," a representative wrote in a follow-up comment.

That wasn't about supporting tRump, it was about being a hate filled bigot.

 

[Crepitus]

So the restaurant retaliated against her free speech.

Obviously you don't understand the concept.

 

[hondo 50]

Century 21. lol

 

[Mashmont]

Good for Century 21.

Century 21 Realtor expresses her Trump love by writing "I hope President Trump deports you" to her Mexican restaurant waiter on the credit card receipt.

Stephanie Lovins has now been fired from Century 21

Realty Company Dumps Ohio Woman For Writing 'I Hope Trump Deports You' On Mexican Restaurant Receipt

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The CENTURY 21 brand does not condone acts of discrimination and is taking this situation seriously. We have looked into it and the agent in question is no longer associated with the brand," a representative wrote in a follow-up comment.

No evidence this story is true.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As is their right.

As is their right.

You absolutely can, especially since it as true.

Well have to just disagree then. What they did is basically doxing. If that video had sparked one of these lefty activists to burn down her house with her inside it, because the restaurant willingly released her image that caused her to be discovered, they should have known this would cause angst against her and might spark someone to compromise her personal safety, because they are legally able to release her info, if they did so knowing she could be harmed, they would be culpable.

Not being to that level, if the restaurant knowing released information that caused her to be fired, she can claim harassment, doxing and malicious intent.

If you agree that you can't be punished for speech you are legally allowed to perform, then these hate speech laws are a contradiction to your point of view.

 

[Marener]

Well have to just disagree then. What they did is basically doxing. If that video had sparked one of these lefty activists to burn down her house with her inside it, because the restaurant willingly released her image that caused her to be discovered, they should have known this would cause angst against her and might spark someone to compromise her personal safety, because they are legally able to release her info, if they did so knowing she could be harmed, they would be culpable.

Not being to that level, if the restaurant knowing released information that caused her to be fired, she can claim harassment, doxing and malicious intent.

If you agree that you can't be punished for speech you are legally allowed to perform, then these hate speech laws are a contradiction to your point of view.

There really isn’t a law against doxxing (furthermore all they did was release her name which isn’t doxxing in the first place).

Harassment won’t apply here.

It’s really not the restaurants fault that she pays a price for her own bad actions.

Siding with the garbage woman isn’t a good look. Attacking the people who exposed her garbage behavior isn’t right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There really isn’t a law against doxxing (furthermore all they did was release her name which isn’t doxxing in the first place).

Harassment won’t apply here.

It’s really not the restaurants fault that she pays a price for her own bad actions.

Siding with the garbage woman isn’t a good look. Attacking the people who exposed her garbage behavior isn’t right.

I'm not siding with her. I've already said she was wrong. I just don't think you have the right to do something to harm someone as a retaliation.

Look, I get where you are coming from, I just think free speech doesn't protect you if you use it to intentionally harm someone.

For example, if I used normal means to gather information on someone, and posted that information online knowing it could get someone hurt, you don't think I'd be held responsible?

 

[JoeB131]

So she wasn't fired for expressing support for Trump afterall, she got fired for expressing hateful bigotry.

But, you can't expect a stupid MAGAT to be truthful about anything, not even once, so the OP's title is to be expected.

Why are you picking on Gator, he's one of the more moderate posters?

 

[JoeB131]

She won't need it. She is going to OWN that Century 21 Franchise. If she wants it.

She will almost certainly take legal action against that Beaner Eatery. And win. A lot.

If I could, strictly for the money, I'd invest in her lawsuit. She's gonna clean up.

On what legal theory? She did what she's accused of doing, and C21 had every right to fire her.

I am right about this. They all fucked up. Bigly. The Agent threw a temper tantrum. So what? Women do that once in a while. So do Men. So does everybody. They should have just left it alone and gone about their lives. And how much of that shit on X is true? Is Julio really here legally? All we have is the word (opinion?) of some post-pubescent little waitresses.

Some day in the future a couple years from now, someone might (maybe) run a blurb that tells us that C21 and Beaner Eatery settle a big Lawsuit for millions and that the Broker of hat C21 Franchise 'sold' it.

Unlikely.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

But that's typical for you.

First, Real Estate Agents are not employees, they're Independent Contractors. They sign a Compensation Agreement that bestows certain rights and duties to them for certain rights and duties from the Broker.

And in that contract there is probably a morals clause that allows them to fire agents for bringing disrepute on the company.

 

[Marener]

For example, if I used normal means to gather information on someone, and posted that information online knowing it could get someone hurt, you don't think I'd be held responsible?

I don’t. You didn’t hurt them. You didn’t ask anyone else to hurt them. You didn’t lie. You didn’t expose private information.

Freedom of speech matters. Even if you don’t like the outcome.

If someone is hurt because their actions are exposed, that’s their own fault. Not the fault of the person who exposes it. Hell, if this were the case most journalists would be sued into bankruptcy. They expose true information all the time that is damaging to people.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I'm not siding with her. I've already said she was wrong. I just don't think you have the right to do something to harm someone as a retaliation.

Look, I get where you are coming from, I just think free speech doesn't protect you if you use it to intentionally harm someone.

For example, if I used normal means to gather information on someone, and posted that information online knowing it could get someone hurt, you don't think I'd be held responsible?

.

All the left cultists care about is getting what they want, and are constantly making up rules to see that they get it, and those they disagree with don't.


.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don’t. You didn’t hurt them. You didn’t ask anyone else to hurt them. You didn’t lie. You didn’t expose private information.

if I know information about someone who committed a crime and I post that information online knowing that there is someone out there that, if they got ahold of that information, would use it to find the person and kill them. If I post that information, I'm not liable?

Freedom of speech matters. Even if you don’t like the outcome.

I'm glad we agree. I hope you remember this in the future...

If someone is hurt because their actions are exposed, that’s their own fault. Not the fault of the person who exposes it. Hell, if this were the case most journalists would be sued into bankruptcy. They expose true information all the time that is damaging to people.

See above

 

[Marener]

if I know information about someone who committed a crime and I post that information online knowing that there is someone out there that, if they got ahold of that information, would use it to find the person and kill them. If I post that information, I'm not liable

Why would you? You didn’t kill them. You didn’t lie. You didn’t encourage anyone to kill them.

I'm glad we agree. I hope you remember this in the future...

Doesn’t seem like you agree, because you’re putting some pretty severe limitations on what is considered free.