What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
mookie1995 said:
Putting yourself in the public prolly puts yourself in play.
if you don’t want to serve the public as such, stay in a private firm.

mookie’s take (for mookie, slap can certainly differ and that’s cool).
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing it should be illegal and again I 100% understand why people want to do it. It's just not for me.
 
unofan said:
I'm torn. On one hand I think harassing people when they're just trying to eat (or sleep, or grocery shop) is generally wrong. On the other hand, the Court had no problem striking down most restrictions on abortion-related protests, so it seems hypocritical of them to care now that the protests are happening to them. Especially when they are public figures while women and abortion doctors are not.

I guess I view this as the chickens coming home to roost more than anything, so I'm far less sympathetic to them.

Edit: put another way, if they want to act like a political branch then they should expect to be treated as such. If they want to remain the relatively anonymous people in black robes, then they need to act like judges rather than politicians.
Click to expand...

I agree. Nailed it. I couldn't add anything.
 
unofan said:
I guess I view this as the chickens coming home to roost more than anything, so I'm far less sympathetic to them.
Click to expand...
No sympathy at all from me. They're the ones who've ruled on the record that there's no such thing as a right to *privacy*. If they wanted to eat dinner in peace, they, of all people, could have ensured that it could happen. I would feel the same lack of sympathy for a school shooter who got killed by his own ricocheting bullet. The power to avoid that fate was in your hand, numbnuts.
 
LynahFan said:
No sympathy at all from me. They're the ones who've ruled on the record that there's no such thing as a right to *privacy*. If they wanted to eat dinner in peace, they, of all people, could have ensured that it could happen. I would feel the same lack of sympathy for a school shooter who got killed by his own ricocheting bullet. The power to avoid that fate was in your hand, numbnuts.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have any sort of expectation of privacy when you go to a public location like a restaurant or a store, and I don't think the ruling in Dobbs, however it turned out, would have changed that.

That said, Kavanaugh's issue in the restaurant can be handled in other ways. First, the restaurant owner can simply ask the protesters to leave, when they don't, call the police and have them trespassed. That was probably the correct way to handle it. If they don't do that, then if I'm Kavanaugh, I simply find someplace else to eat where the proprietor has more control over his facility.

There is also probably some sort of harassment/restraining order process in Maryland that Kavanaugh can use to prevent individuals from harassing him under some threat of jail, but I don't see a SCOTUS justice doing that.

I agree with slapshot that I am generally opposed to the public harassment of people, any person. If I saw someone in a restaurant with whom I strongly disagreed politically, it would never dawn on me to go up to them and berate them publicly, but that's just how I was raised. I have a sneaky suspicion that most of the people on this board would be the same way, probably because that's the way they were raised too.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Anyone who gives a **** about Kavanaugh being able to eat dinner at a restaurant in public is part of the problem. Period.
Click to expand...

See that's what you don't get. It literally has nothing to do with Kavanaugh. The question is whether you want to live in a society where any person can be publicly harassed while eating dinner with friends or family at a public restaurant. I prefer not, but that's just me.

There is literally no chance that I will find myself in a position where I am the victim of that type of public harassment. But I don't want to see that behavior for the restaurant owner and employees, for the other patrons in the restaurant, for the subject of the harassment, or society in general. I think it's boorish, unintelligent, unprofessional, bad mannered behavior.

But I'm old. You guys apparently want to live in that world, and you're likely going to be around a lot longer than I will be, so good luck.
 
SJHovey said:
See that's what you don't get. It literally has nothing to do with Kavanaugh. The question is whether you want to live in a society where any person can be publicly harassed while eating dinner with friends or family at a public restaurant. I prefer not, but that's just me.

There is literally no chance that I will find myself in a position where I am the victim of that type of public harassment. But I don't want to see that behavior for the restaurant owner and employees, for the other patrons in the restaurant, for the subject of the harassment, or society in general. I think it's boorish, unintelligent, unprofessional, bad mannered behavior.

But I'm old. You guys apparently want to live in that world, and you're likely going to be around a lot longer than I will be, so good luck.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I do not give a shit about something that is NOT a Constitutional right after Constitutional rights have been fucking trampled. Privacy rights are gone. Get used to it.
 
Frankly, if your religious beliefs are strong enough to interfere with your professionalism, then maybe you shouldn't become a pharmacist, a physician, or really any healthcare role where your beliefs may clash with putting patient care first. However, I do realize that this is not as cut and dried as, say, a vegan not making a great butcher or cheesemonger. A devout Xtian could still perform most of the job duties and responsibilities of a pharmacist or physician without their beliefs on artificial contraception and life at conception being an issue.

IIRC, here in the Midwest, Meijer stores have a policy that their pharmacists can refuse to fill a Rx that goes against their religious beliefs. However, they are required to hand it off to another pharmacist without such objections, or inform the patient and to transfer the Rx to another pharmacy who will fill it. I believe there was a wrongful termination lawsuit here in Michigan not too long ago which the former employee lost due to his failure to follow through on the latter.
 
SJHovey said:
See that's what you don't get. It literally has nothing to do with Kavanaugh. The question is whether you want to live in a society where any person can be publicly harassed while eating dinner with friends or family at a public restaurant. I prefer not, but that's just me.

There is literally no chance that I will find myself in a position where I am the victim of that type of public harassment. But I don't want to see that behavior for the restaurant owner and employees, for the other patrons in the restaurant, for the subject of the harassment, or society in general. I think it's boorish, unintelligent, unprofessional, bad mannered behavior.

But I'm old. You guys apparently want to live in that world, and you're likely going to be around a lot longer than I will be, so good luck.
Click to expand...

Does your world have a First Amendment that no longer exists or something?
 
SJHovey said:
You guys apparently want to live in that world.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. But just as I don't begrudge the Cubs using a DH even though it's an abomination because they'd be stupid not to, I don't begrudge protesters using their full repertoire when lesser steps didn't work. Is prefer neither be necessary, but then we don't live in a perfect world.

Also, to be clear, my understanding is that Kavanaugh wasn't harassed. The protesters were out front, forcing him to leave through the back. They weren't inside the actual restaurant, and he was able to finish his meal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top