First Avenue fires new general manager for supporting Trump

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://racketmn.com/first-avenue-minneapolis-new-trump-loving-gm-is-out-of-the-picture

Very happy to be going to a show at a First Avenue venue tonight after doing this! ALL LIBERAL ALL THE TIME

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Antidemocratic cult-like behavior on part of those who made that decision.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Antidemocratic cult-like behavior on part of those who made that decision.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://racketmn.com/first-avenue-minneapolis-new-trump-loving-gm-is-out-of-the-picture

Very happy to be going to a show at a First Avenue venue tonight after doing this! ALL LIBERAL ALL THE TIME

Good for them. I've been saying for a long time that we all need to stop playing along with the pretense that the GOP is normal or acceptable. As Republican prepare to pledge their allegiance once again to a rapist, treasonous, megalomaniac with the intent of destroying the American Republic, they should all be treated as the deplorable people they so desperately want to be.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://racketmn.com/first-avenue-minneapolis-new-trump-loving-gm-is-out-of-the-picture

Very happy to be going to a show at a First Avenue venue tonight after doing this! ALL LIBERAL ALL THE TIME

Good for them. I've been saying for a long time that we all need to stop playing along with the pretense that the GOP is normal or acceptable. As Republican prepare to pledge their allegiance once again to a rapist, treasonous, megalomaniac with the intent of destroying the American Republic, they should all be treated as the deplorable people they so desperately want to be.

Seek help.

[DrScholl]

Every business has a right to fire employees that might end up being a liability and a lot of Trump supporters can be liabilities.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Every business has a right to fire employees that might end up being a liability and a lot of Trump supporters can be liabilities.

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.  Let's do that and see how it holds up in court.  After all, a LOT of BLM supporters can be liabilities.

Don't like that idea?  You probably shouldn't.  It's inherently unfair. 
But no more unfair than your idea.  This employee that was fired didn't destroy statues, harass patrons of outdoor dining, or burn a Wendy's in Atlanta.  So I'll retract my suggestion for a better suggestion:  SEEK HELP!

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

No one is entitled to a job. Republicans have been fighting worker protections for decades - anyone can be fired for any reason as long as it's not an immutable characteristic like race or disability. Supporting a traitor and being a moron on public facing social media doesn't count. Bye!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Every business has a right to fire employees that might end up being a liability and a lot of Trump supporters can be liabilities.

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters. 

Republicans love to equate BLM with January 6th and their leader's consistent calls for political violence and rejection of constitutional democracy. But even if the right's worst depictions of the BLM movement were perfectly accurate (which they are not), the comparison with January 6th and the ongoing Republican support for overthrowing the government of the United States is a false one.

The Republican Party, via its leader, Donald Trump, organized an attack on Congress, tried to illegally overturn the results of an election, rejects rule of law, and openly supports a dictatorship (along with a host of other unsavory activities). Republicans need to find a better "bothsides" button than "BLM".  (I suppose they could try linking the Democrats to the Confederacy - at least the names would match up better. But for some reason, so many Republicans seem reluctant to accurately denounce the Confederates as the vile traitors they were.)

Yes, employers in the United States can fire employees for a many reasons (or no reason at all), including for being a vocal supporter of rapist criminal organization head Donald Trump. As with so many things, this is the United States that Republicans wanted, and forced into existence. But as usual, we get the Republican whine (so much whining), "I never thought the laws I wanted to use against other people would be used against meeeee!"

If Republicans truly want better worker protections from arbitrary firings, there is an obvious solution at hand: support unions and vote for Democrats!

[T'Chenka]

As stated multiple times in the thread already: Republicans can't have it both ways. You either want worker protections or you don't. Republicans didn't want them / allow them, so now people can get fired for being Trump supporters. This is what you wanted. This is what you voted for. You don't get to whine about it now.

[Obama24]

Elections have consequences.

Elections. Have. Consequences.

[SWE]

Seems fair to me. It's understandable that a business would want someone competent serving as their general manager, and being a Trump voter is pretty strong evidence against someone's intelligence

[Joe Republic]

Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.

Not even trying to mask the racism any more, I notice.

[Torie]

Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.

Not even trying to mask the racism any more, I notice.

In any event there is a serious constitutional issue arising from firing BLM people on the theory that BLM people based on the theory that they are more likely to commit theft. That would be an awesome class action lawsuit.

[lfromnj]

Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.

Not even trying to mask the racism any more, I notice.

In any event there is a serious constitutional issue arising from firing BLM people on the theory that BLM people based on the theory that they are more likely to commit theft. That would be an awesome class action lawsuit.

Can you point to the clause of the constitution which says that? Obviously there might be a civil rights lawsuit over racial discrimination but certainly not a constitutional one.

[GP270watch]

 Support of Trump is antithetical to being a decent human being.

[Torie]

Support of Trump is antithetical to being a decent human being.

You are right. There is no state action. My bad. But yeah, it would be a great civil suit for the "fires."

[ProudModerate2]

Antidemocratic cult-like behavior on part of those who made that decision.

[T'Chenka]

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.

Okay, sure.

We can divide all of the restaurants in the city into "they won't hire BLM supporters" and "they hire people whether they support BLM or not". How many people are going to continue going to the restaurants that won't hire BLM supporters? I forsee a lot of restaurants struggling and several closing. Republicans love the free market, but the free market does not love Republicans. Womp womp.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.

Okay, sure.

We can divide all of the restaurants in the city into "they won't hire BLM supporters" and "they hire people whether they support BLM or not". How many people are going to continue going to the restaurants that won't hire BLM supporters? I forsee a lot of restaurants struggling and several closing. Republicans love the free market, but the free market does not love Republicans. Womp womp.

So why is it OK then for an establishment to fire a person solely for supporting Donald Trump on his own time, but not BLM?  BLM is, after all, a political organization with views many would consider extreme.

I will also note that, in response to my post, people go ahead and give reasons why it isn't OK to fire people for being open BLM supporters, but won't say why it's OK to fire Trump supporters.  People are telling on themselves here; they want to protect the group they like and punish the group they don't like, and principle be damned.  (My post, by the way, clearly stated that I'm NOT for firing people just for support for a political group, even one I loathe.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.

Not even trying to mask the racism any more, I notice.

If you're going to be sleazy and libel me, you can at least have the decency to quote the entire post:

Every business has a right to fire employees that might end up being a liability and a lot of Trump supporters can be liabilities.

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.  After all, they are rightly considered liabilities by businesses fearful of inside retail theft.  Let's do that and see how it holds up in court.  After all, a LOT of BLM supporters can be liabilities.

Don't like that idea?  You probably shouldn't.  It's inherently unfair. 
But no more unfair than your idea.  This employee that was fired didn't destroy statues, harass patrons of outdoor dining, or burn a Wendy's in Atlanta.  So I'll retract my suggestion for a better suggestion:  SEEK HELP!

My negative opinion of BLM is based on their role in causing tens of millions in property damage.  That's beside the point, however.  Unlike most people here (or so it seems), I'm willing to respect the rights of people I may loathe. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Elections have consequences.

Elections. Have. Consequences.

This isn't supposed to be one of them.

But if it is, and if I were an employer, and I needed to lay off staff, should I start with the Biden supporters first, simply because I can?  Or should I be fair and consider work performance prior to the need to downsise.

[SteveRogers]

Let's try your theory out.  Let's have private businesses fire all BLM supporters.

Okay, sure.

We can divide all of the restaurants in the city into "they won't hire BLM supporters" and "they hire people whether they support BLM or not". How many people are going to continue going to the restaurants that won't hire BLM supporters? I forsee a lot of restaurants struggling and several closing. Republicans love the free market, but the free market does not love Republicans. Womp womp.

So why is it OK then for an establishment to fire a person solely for supporting Donald Trump on his own time, but not BLM?  BLM is, after all, a political organization with views many would consider extreme.

Both things are legal.

[T'Chenka]

So why is it OK then for an establishment to fire a person solely for supporting Donald Trump on his own time, but not BLM?

Not all people, organizations or political ideologies are equal and they should not all be treated equally. Being anti-democracy is not the same as being anti-socialist and should not be treated as such. Supporting minority rights is not the same as supporting neo-nazis and should not be treated as such. For the record, I do not FIRMLY believe that it should be illegal to fire people for supporting BLM. From a moral perspective I think it's wrong, but I haven't given enough thought to whether or not it should be illegal or not.

BLM is, after all, a political organization with views many would consider extreme.

You have been told 100 times that 99% or more of BLM protestors were not officially associated with the organization known as BLM. You and others like you have also provided ZERO evidence that the statement I just made is wrong. You continue to repeat this talking point, even though people have pointed out 100 times that it isn't true, and you have never been able to explain why it actually is true. This means one of two things... either you are operating in bad faith, or you not only believe something with no evidence that it's true, but expect / demand that other people will take it seriously when you use it for part of your arguments in political debates. Not how real life works.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I personally consider this thread to have revealed the latest unfairness of many here.  Not just unfairness in one situation, but the lack of capacity to be fair to persons on the other side of your argument IN REAL LIFE, and not just on this Forum.