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

[drudge X]

Good, fire her. See how easy that is. If only leftists are willing to call for the same fate if their own is caught with hateful comments

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Because i knew by releasing that information, someone would get killed.............

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

Freedom of speech has always had limitations. You can't use freedom of speech with intent to harm someone.

 

[Marener]

Because i knew by releasing that information, someone would get killed.............

You can’t possibly “know” that.

Maybe if someone said “tell me where this person is so I can go kill them” and you said that, it’s probable you’re an accomplice.

That’s pretty far from what happened here especially since “harm” that she faced isn’t a crime. Being fired (or whatever we are calling this) is a long way away from murder.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You can’t possibly “know” that.

Maybe if someone said “tell me where this person is so I can go kill them” and you said that, it’s probable you’re an accomplice.

That’s pretty far from what happened here especially since “harm” that she faced isn’t a crime. Being fired (or whatever we are calling this) is a long way away from murder.

John picks a fight with steve. John gets the better of steve and bloodies him up pretty good. Now, I know a guy named Bob, who is really good friends with Steve and says if he ever finds out who messed up his friend, he's going to enact some brutal revenge. Now, I have information about John and I tell Bob. Bob then goes to johns house and breaks him up pretty good a day puts him in the hospital. Critical condition.

Technically, what i did was legal, but, because I knew someone would get hurt by that information, I am partly responsible for what happened.

 

[Marener]

John picks a fight with steve. John gets the better of steve and bloodies him up pretty good. Now, I know a guy named Bob, who is really good friends with Steve and says if he ever finds out who messed up his friend, he's going to enact some brutal revenge. Now, I have information about John and I tell Bob. Bob then goes to johns house and breaks him up pretty good a day puts him in the hospital. Critical condition.

Technically, what i did was legal, but, because I knew someone would get hurt by that information, I am partly responsible for what happened.

You might be hit for being an accomplice to a crime. I don’t know. Seems pretty specific.

But that really has nothing to do with what happened here.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You might be hit for being an accomplice to a crime. I don’t know. Seems pretty specific.

But that really has nothing to do with what happened here.

why would I be an accomplice? I simply gave information that was legally allowed to be given.

 

[Marener]

why would I be an accomplice? I simply gave information that was legally allowed to be given.

Because you’re knowingly and willingly assisting in the commission of a crime.

That still has nothing to do with the story.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because you’re knowingly and willingly assisting in the commission of a crime.

That still has nothing to do with the story.

But it shows complicity.

Just like the restaurant is complicit in causing that woman to be fired. They didn't know what would happen when they posted that information. With as many left wing riots, violence, and all the anger the left has, they took a risk that posting this information online might have outed some personal information and an angry left wing mob could have gone to her house and hurt her.

If you disagree, then does that mean I can get a camera and randomly record people in public hoping i can get them to do or say something that I can put online hoping to get some harm to come to them?

 

[Marener]

But it shows complicity.

Just like the restaurant is complicit in causing that woman to be fired. They didn't know what would happen when they posted that information. With as many left wing riots, violence, and all the anger the left has, they took a risk that posting this information online might have outed some personal information and an angry left wing mob could have gone to her house and hurt her.

If you disagree, then does that mean I can get a camera and randomly record people in public hoping i can get them to do or say something that I can put online hoping to get some harm to come to them?

if they didn’t know the woman would be fired, they can be complicit.

Even if they did know the woman would be fired, that’s not illegal.

Yes, you can record people in public. That’s a well established right.

If the waiter called a patron a terrible name, and the patron told their supervisor and the waiter was fired. Couldn’t waiter sue the patron for causing them harm?

 

[ThisIsMe]

if they didn’t know the woman would be fired, they can be complicit.

In my earlier case, if I knew bob was very angry but I didn't know he was going to commit violence, maybe I just thought he wanted to go have a good talk with steve. So I provide the persons address and a picture of his house, and Bob goes and kills the person...you still think I'm not complicit?

Even if they did know the woman would be fired, that’s not illegal.

so then we can go around taking actions toward people hoping to get them fired?

Also, there has to be a law somewhere that, while it's legal to record people in public, using that video and posting information online about people with intent to bring harm to people, that can't be legal. I'm not lawyer, but...that certainly seems like it would violate someone's rights....don't you?

Yes, you can record people in public. That’s a well established right.

But can you use that information with intent to harm?

If the waiter called a patron a terrible name, and the patron told their supervisor and the waiter was fired. Couldn’t waiter sue the patron for causing them harm?

No because the waiter is at work..and work rules stated you cannot harass your customers.

 

[Marener]

Now, I know a guy named Bob, who is really good friends with Steve and says if he ever finds out who messed up his friend, he's going to enact some brutal revenge.

In my earlier case, if I knew bob was very angry but I didn't know he was going to commit violence, maybe I just thought he wanted to go have a good talk with steve. So I provide the persons address and a picture of his house, and Bob goes and kills the person...you still think I'm not complicit?

Actually in your earlier case, Bob told you he was going to enact brutal revenge. If Bob told you that if he ever fins out, he's going to go right to the police and it leads to the perpetrators arrest, then don't you agree it's pretty different?

so then we can go around taking actions toward people hoping to get them fired?

Also, there has to be a law somewhere that, while it's legal to record people in public, using that video and posting information online about people with intent to bring harm to people, that can't be legal. I'm not lawyer, but...that certainly seems like it would violate someone's rights....don't you?

No one is getting fired unless they took actions to put themselves in that position. The lady in the restaurant was fired because she said mean things.

But can you use that information with intent to harm?

Still legal. It's public.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually in your earlier case, Bob told you he was going to enact brutal revenge. If Bob told you that if he ever fins out, he's going to go right to the police and it leads to the perpetrators arrest, then don't you agree it's pretty different?

But what if I didn't know bob was going to enact revenge, maybe I just thought he was going to give john a good talking to, so I provide the info, and Bob kills steve.. I provided the information, I knew bob was angry, what i did was legal, but it also helped lead to the commission of a crime.

Take, for example, this story of DogeQuest, which is a website alleged to provide personal details of people who are tesla owners. Same thing...technically, the information is available, but the people are posting it as a means of harassment and doxxing, you think this is a lawful act?

No one is getting fired unless they took actions to put themselves in that position. The lady in the restaurant was fired because she said mean things.

No, she was fired because the employees doxxed her and posted her image online with the intent of causing some kind of retaliation to her. What she did was free speech, apparently leftys don't like free speech...

Still legal. It's public.

I disagree, I can't see how doxxing with intent to harm could be legal. If a business doxxes one of its customers...I'm not sure that could be considered legal. You may not have an expectation of privacy, but you are paying for their services, and thus you are paying for access to their premises. You should have a reasonable expectation that the business isn't going to cause harm to one of its customers. Along the same vein of, if you are injured in a business, you can sue them, same thing here.

What this woman did was despicable, but it wasn't a crime, she should be free from that business carrying out revenge on her.

 

[Marener]

But what if I didn't know bob was going to enact revenge, maybe I just thought he was going to give john a good talking to, so I provide the info, and Bob kills steve.. I provided the information, I knew bob was angry, what i did was legal, but it also helped lead to the commission of a crime.

Take, for example, this story of DogeQuest, which is a website alleged to provide personal details of people who are tesla owners. Same thing...technically, the information is available, but the people are posting it as a means of harassment and doxxing, you think this is a lawful act?

If you didn't knowingly and willingly contribute to the crime, then I don't think you are an accessory to it.

No, she was fired because the employees doxxed her and posted her image online with the intent of causing some kind of retaliation to her. What she did was free speech, apparently leftys don't like free speech...

No one deprived her of free speech. She never would have been fired if she hadn't acted like a jerk. She's legally allowed to say those things. No one can stop her, sue her or do anything legal against her. But she can be fired for it.

I disagree, I can't see how doxxing with intent to harm could be legal. If a business doxxes one of its customers...I'm not sure that could be considered legal. You may not have an expectation of privacy, but you are paying for their services, and thus you are paying for access to their premises. You should have a reasonable expectation that the business isn't going to cause harm to one of its customers. Along the same vein of, if you are injured in a business, you can sue them, same thing here.

What this woman did was despicable, but it wasn't a crime, she should be free from that business carrying out revenge on her.

A business doesn't necessarily want despicable people working for them. Telling the business she's despicable isn't wrong.

What if you had a friend and you saw their spouse cheating on them in public. You tell your friend, and they get a divorce. Are you liable for that harm?

 

[ThisIsMe]

If you didn't knowingly and willingly contribute to the crime, then I don't think you are an accessory to it.

I'm not sure of the law, but I would assume that if I knew bob was angry with John, my providing locating information to Bob so he could find John would implicate me in whatever happened as a result.

No one deprived her of free speech.

Never said they did. I'm saying a business retaliated against her for her free speech.

She never would have been fired if she hadn't acted like a jerk.

She wouldn't have been fired if the restaurant where she was a paying customer didn't dox her.

She's legally allowed to say those things. No one can stop her, sue her or do anything legal against her. But she can be fired for it.

OK, but if your firing is due to the action of a business you are paying to use their services, that makes them liable for any harm they caused to come upon you.

A business doesn't necessarily want despicable people working for them. Telling the business she's despicable isn't wrong.

If you are a paying customer of said business, they are liable for any harm caused to you on their premises, or due to their actions.

What if you had a friend and you saw their spouse cheating on them in public. You tell your friend, and they get a divorce. Are you liable for that harm?

Yeah! I would be partly responsible for that divorce because I know that if I tell the person, there is a chance a divorce could happen. It's especially bad if I tell them hoping a divorce would happen.

Now, in this case, telling the guy his wife is cheating would probably be the right thing to do, but I'm not a paying customer on the premises of either person, and once I decide to inject myself in the situation, I am not a part of it, and my actions make me responsible for whatever happens, because I chose to put myself in the middle of it.

The appropriate response from the restaurant would have been to ban her from coming back, but they chose to onkect themselves into the situation, so that makes them responsible for whatever happens. In this case, they doxxed a paying customer. This caused her to be harmed due to their actions, so she should be able to hold them liable for that harm.

 

[Marener]

I'm not sure of the law, but I would assume that if I knew bob was angry with John, my providing locating information to Bob so he could find John would implicate me in whatever happened as a result.

To be an accessory, it has to be knowingly and willingly. If you sold someone a crow bar and they used it to steal a car, you didn't commit a crime. You knew that selling someone a crow bar could be used to smash out a window, but you didn't know it would happen.

Never said they did. I'm saying a business retaliated against her for her free speech.

They used their free speech to retaliate against her free speech. Very legal.

She wouldn't have been fired if the restaurant where she was a paying customer didn't dox her.

Not their problem.

OK, but if your firing is due to the action of a business you are paying to use their services, that makes them liable for any harm they caused to come upon you.

Now you're trying to make it about "paying for their services", which has no relevancy.

If you are a paying customer of said business, they are liable for any harm caused to you on their premises, or due to their actions.

Not if that harm is caused by constitutionally protected actions.

Yeah! I would be partly responsible for that divorce because I know that if I tell the person, there is a chance a divorce could happen. It's especially bad if I tell them hoping a divorce would happen.

Now, in this case, telling the guy his wife is cheating would probably be the right thing to do, but I'm not a paying customer on the premises of either person, and once I decide to inject myself in the situation, I am not a part of it, and my actions make me responsible for whatever happens, because I chose to put myself in the middle of it.

The appropriate response from the restaurant would have been to ban her from coming back, but they chose to onkect themselves into the situation, so that makes them responsible for whatever happens. In this case, they doxxed a paying customer. This caused her to be harmed due to their actions, so she should be able to hold them liable for that harm.

So you can be sued for telling your friend their partner was cheating on them?

 

[0311]

LOL. Freedom of speech is in regard to the US government. Your employer, not so much.

Another obscure and heretofore unknown conspiracy site. No real proof, but since when does MAGA facts.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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.

So what ?
What's wrong with that ?
I don't see any problem at all... not one
They need to give her her job back and a raise on her commission percentages

 

[ThisIsMe]

To be an accessory, it has to be knowingly and willingly. If you sold someone a crow bar and they used it to steal a car, you didn't commit a crime. You knew that selling someone a crow bar could be used to smash out a window, but you didn't know it would happen.

If I had an indication that the person REALLY wanted a particular car and had an idea they might be up to no good, though I didn't know for sure, I could be held responsible because I had reasonable suspicion they could be up to no good.

They used their free speech to retaliate against her free speech. Very legal.

So you think a business can retaliate against its customers?

Not their problem.

I think it is. For a business to take retaliatory actions against a customer is certainly not legal, especially if she was just exercising a constitutionally protected right.

Now you're trying to make it about "paying for their services", which has no relevancy.

It is relevant because she is a paying customer.

its the same context as a bar who can be held liable for damages and injury for serving a visibly intoxicated customer. The bartender is legally allowed to sell alcohol, and they don't know if this person is driving or has someone to drive for them, still, if that person gets into an accident, the bar is liable, because they served them alcohol. Which is their legal right, but they are held liable because they know to do so, could cause harm to someone.

Not if that harm is caused by constitutionally protected actions.

Does a restaurant not have an obligation to the safety of its customers? Regardless of what they did? Let's say that woman had been killed by an angry mob as a result of them posting what they did, you think the restaurant wouldn't be sued?

So you can be sued for telling your friend their partner was cheating on them?

If I owned a restaurant, and that friend came in and while in my business I told that person that their wife was cheating on them, and it caused the divorce, I'm thinking..yeah, the woman could probably sue my business for damage because as a business, it's none of my business to get involved in the affairs of my customers, and I would have known that by divulging that information, that a divorce would be a reasonable possibility.

alienation of affection

www.law.cornell.edu

Granted, it's an outdated law, but it still exists in 6 states!

 

[BothWings]

She wasn't fired for expressing support for the president she was fired for saying something quasi-racist, and harassing someone with an unfounded assumption that the waiter was illegal. Century 21 doesn't want to be associated with that low class stupidity. I voted for Trump three times and make no apologies, but I still wouldn't say something like that to someone who I didn't really know jack shit about other than they are Mexican. My own wife is an immigrant. A legal one.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

She wasn't fired for expressing support for the president she was fired for saying something quasi-racist, and harassing someone with an unfounded assumption that the waiter was illegal. Century 21 doesn't want to be associated with that low class stupidity. I voted for Trump three times and make no apologies, but I still wouldn't say something like that to someone who I didn't really know jack shit about other than they are Mexican. My own wife is an immigrant. A legal one.

F****** progressive Hall monitors
You can't say you can't do f*** you