Texas teacher fired for not signing pledge to refuse to boycott Israel

May 2013
13,450
11,699
Boise, ID
#91
This isn't going to hold up in court - Even in Texas.
They had no right to put this scrap of crap to sign in front of teachers.
Hope she takes their asses for a lucrative ride.
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,479
42,851
valid location
#92
I can think of few more coercive methods in a capitalist democracy, than a government making someone's employment and income dependent upon political speech or alignment.
I have, as a public employee, been required to sign an oath to follow and defend the US Constitution (it's similar to the oath that every elected official takes as part of their office taking). I've never been required to avoid advocating for or against a political idea beyond that.
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,479
42,851
valid location
#93
This isn't going to hold up in court - Even in Texas.
They had no right to put this scrap of crap to sign in front of teachers.
Hope she takes their asses for a lucrative ride.
It's doubtful she'd see any money out of this--she hasn't suffered a loss. But she should get an injunction against Texas enforcing this law.

I believe the real legal principle involved is that the plaintiff isn't a state employee but a contractor, so her relationship to the state is different from an employee. But my argument is that it shouldn't matter. Contracting entities have Constitutional rights, just like individuals. That's why it's frustrating to me that Pragmatic, who is an attorney and understand the law better than I do, won't make a sincere effort to discuss the law in this case but instead runs around the issue just like some fool with no understanding at all might do.
 
Likes: Blueneck
Feb 2010
33,028
22,750
between Moon and NYC
#94
Yes, by exercising her political rights as a citizen of the US. She IS her company. She's an independent, individual contractor. That's what we've been talking about. Surely you aren't this dense that you use this "playing dumb" tactic to avoid discussing the key issue here, which is a state government limiting the First Amendment rights of someone it employs. I sometimes have to chase one of our less capable members around this barn, but here I am with you, back where we began.

Why? You don't think that the First Amendment is worth getting upset about? Or do you think the First Amendment only protects SOME opinions and not others?

Really, please, make an actual argument here or stop acting like you intend to.
Made my arguments. Believe they are valid. Sorry they annoy you.

As i noted initially there are two debatable sides to the issue.


(but the "you can't be this dense" line was a good one.....gonna have to put some ice on on that.)







.
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,479
42,851
valid location
#95
Made my arguments. Believe they are valid. Sorry they annoy you.
What annoys me is that you won't defend them when you're challenged. You haven't actually made an argument here. You've simply said that there are two sides. We still haven't seen the other side defended.

As i noted initially there are two debatable sides to the issue.
Yes, but you won't debate yours, which you've never actually stated. You don't think that preventing someone from making political arguments against Israel is "unreasonable," but you've done nothing to defend that stance. And you've done nothing to show how this "reasonable" restriction isn't a violation of the First Amendment. Does that part of the Constitution only protect political speech you deem reasonable?
 
Likes: Blueneck
Feb 2010
33,028
22,750
between Moon and NYC
#96
What annoys me is that you won't defend them when you're challenged. You haven't actually made an argument here. You've simply said that there are two sides. We still haven't seen the other side defended.

Yes, but you won't debate yours, which you've never actually stated. You don't think that preventing someone from making political arguments against Israel is "unreasonable," but you've done nothing to defend that stance. And you've done nothing to show how this "reasonable" restriction isn't a violation of the First Amendment. Does that part of the Constitution only protect political speech you deem reasonable?
The issue is directed specifically with business contracts signed with the state. Not with individuals or state employees. Have made my points numerous times and you seem to be simply dismissing them out of hand because they conflict with your opinion.

We do appear to be going in circles here.

You can have the last word...






..
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
70,676
38,522
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#97
I believe the real legal principle involved is that the plaintiff isn't a state employee but a contractor, so her relationship to the state is different from an employee. But my argument is that it shouldn't matter. Contracting entities have Constitutional rights, just like individuals.
Contracting entities do, of course, have constitutional rights. But there is no right to a government contract, and the government can choose who it wants to do business with.

Note that the difference between "employee" and "contractor" is substantive, not nominal. Calling someone a "contractor" does not mean she is not really an employee, and vice versa. Click here for a chart outlining the differences.
That's why it's frustrating to me that Pragmatic, who is an attorney and understand the law better than I do, won't make a sincere effort to discuss the law in this case but instead runs around the issue just like some fool with no understanding at all might do.
I did not know @pragmatic was an attorney.
 
Apr 2014
36,241
22,786
Maryland
#98
That's fine, but in Ohio, the government is investing in Israel.

Ohio buys record $61 million in Israel Bonds - Jewish Telegraphic Agency



So it's okay for the government of Ohio to invest in Israeli bonds to show their support for Israel, but not okay for an employee or contractor to support the BDS movement. I can't help but wonder if the law disallowing this isn't just an excuse to increase the amount of taxpayer money we can invest in Israel.

I have nothing bad to say about Jews, but more and more I'm finding the government of Israel to be Russianesque in it's manipulation of American public sentiment in favor of their country. And this goes for all foreign countries, fwiw. If the government isn't supposed to be picking "winners & losers" why are we doing this?
I would rather you use the word Israelis them just the blanket Jews. The secular Jews in Israel are angry as hell
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,479
42,851
valid location
#99
The issue is directed specifically with business contracts signed with the state. Not with individuals or state employees. Have made my points numerous times and you seem to be simply dismissing them out of hand because they conflict with your opinion.

We do appear to be going in circles here.

You can have the last word...
And my point has been that the state could simply turn every employee into a contractor and control the politics of its entire workforce. That's what I've been saying this whole time, and you've never responded to it. I haven't been ignoring your point, I've been challenging it and you've been avoiding it. You want me to have the last word? That's just another way to avoid the point I'm making.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
70,676
38,522
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
And my point has been that the state could simply turn every employee into a contractor and control the politics of its entire workforce.
It really cannot do that, as the courts would find the folks now called "contractors" instead of "employees" are still employees within the meaning of the law no matter what they are called. Substance over form prevails.

It is like that old joke: how many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg? Answer: four; calling the tail a leg does not make it one.