I have a question to ask. Are there ever times where job mandates are actually a violation of civil rights , and therefore subject to revision, which I think one of the posters here was suggesting?
I asked because I heard an American Lawyer say that displays of silent protests are part and parcel of an American's basic civic rights , and I wasn't sure under what contest that this is true
In my opinion, I am not a lawyer or expert but IMHO
there are two separate issues that get mixed up with the discussion of 'rights', particularly speech, religion, and press
The ideal and the implementation
the ideal of 'rights'(regarding speech, religion, and press) as a notion of what we 'should be able to do' stems often from the constitutions list of what CONGRESS can or cant do.
1st Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Often times the discussion of 'rights' is brought up in matters that Congress had nothing to do with. as in an employer/employee or other type of contract in the civilian world.
Often times, similarly , when it comes to contracts that are in some way TIED TO GOVERNMENT, rights come up
they really only apply legally in the latter situation, as far as I understand. However PUBLIC OPINION in any position that involves public exposure and someones pocketbook will almost always be able to find grounds for questioning the contractual agreements through some type of litigation.
Edited by
msharmony
on Mon 10/16/17 03:42 PM