You said people should be punished for expressing their 1st amendment rights. That they should be terminated as government workers for using their 1st amendment.
That is not what I said. If you can’t even accurately represent what I am saying, then you have no room to complain about who is posting in good faith.
think you’re also missing this is a bill for the government
I am aware.
You have no right to be called anything you want.
I never said otherwise.
You end up with people pushing back because it’s against their 1st amendment rights.
You get people pushing back because they’re bigots. Requiring basic respect for your peers is violation of your 1st amendment rights.
If one government employee verbally harrases another, saying “get back in the kitchen woman” to a female employee. They will be fired, and rightfully so. This is no different.
Yet another example of how you like to be misleading. Nothing I said even slightly implied that.
Sure is. But this is irrelevant.
deleted by creator
That is not what I said. If you can’t even accurately represent what I am saying, then you have no room to complain about who is posting in good faith.
deleted by creator
This
And this are not equivalent. Basic respect for peers as a requirement for employment is not a violation of your first amendment rights.
deleted by creator
I do understand how it works.
I am aware.
I never said otherwise.
You get people pushing back because they’re bigots. Requiring basic respect for your peers is violation of your 1st amendment rights.
If one government employee verbally harrases another, saying “get back in the kitchen woman” to a female employee. They will be fired, and rightfully so. This is no different.
deleted by creator
I’ve already explained how it isn’t.
No, I don’t. But that doesn’t change that it isn’t protected for the reasons I’ve already explained.
And does it violate the first amendment rights of the employee who says “get back in the kitchen”? No, no it doesn’t.