I don't understand how having a rainbow nearby isn't protected by 1st amendment rights.
Probably because that's not how the first amendment works.
IANAL but, if it’s a publicly owned and operated library, and someone acting on behalf of the government fired these people for some sort of protected speech (which isn’t always just talking/writing) then I’m pretty sure that’s a 1a violation.
Though I could use some clarity on any distinction between a persons own speech, and speech that could be seen as that of the library.
Only kind of related, but I just learned from another Lemmy thread that while public nudity is illegal in major cities in Oregon, if you are riding a bicycle while nude, it is considered "speech protected under the first amendment" because it can reasonably be assumed you are protesting against cars.
IIRC there was also some feminist protest where the ladies went protesting topless onto the street. It was also deemed "protected speech" because of the protest.
Strange how certain types incorrectly construe constitutional right violations with businesses but completely overlook state enforcement as literal infringement by government. Big gubmint isn't just federal.
Freedom of speech is the right to not be punished by the government, not private people.
I could be fired from a job for saying I like the Ninja Turtles and the newest remake wasn't that bad. But the govt can't do shit about my awesome movie choices.
Now this is a library, so I think it would come down to who runs it and their policies. For example, I was in the USMC and while I uniform I couldn't openly support any political stances or party.
Are you aware that Libraries are government institutions?
Yeah, that's why I mentioned being in the USMC, a government institution.
Yet, rightly so, you cannot be fired for saying that you're gay as that is considered sexual discrimination. See Bostock v. Clayton County:
I don't understand how having a rainbow nearby isn't protected by 1st amendment rights.
Probably because that's not how the first amendment works.
IANAL but, if it’s a publicly owned and operated library, and someone acting on behalf of the government fired these people for some sort of protected speech (which isn’t always just talking/writing) then I’m pretty sure that’s a 1a violation.
Though I could use some clarity on any distinction between a persons own speech, and speech that could be seen as that of the library.
Only kind of related, but I just learned from another Lemmy thread that while public nudity is illegal in major cities in Oregon, if you are riding a bicycle while nude, it is considered "speech protected under the first amendment" because it can reasonably be assumed you are protesting against cars.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2008/11/judge_throws_out_charges_again.html
IIRC there was also some feminist protest where the ladies went protesting topless onto the street. It was also deemed "protected speech" because of the protest.
Strange how certain types incorrectly construe constitutional right violations with businesses but completely overlook state enforcement as literal infringement by government. Big gubmint isn't just federal.
Would you like to explain it?
I'm guessing https://xkcd.com/1357/
Freedom of speech is the right to not be punished by the government, not private people.
I could be fired from a job for saying I like the Ninja Turtles and the newest remake wasn't that bad. But the govt can't do shit about my awesome movie choices.
Now this is a library, so I think it would come down to who runs it and their policies. For example, I was in the USMC and while I uniform I couldn't openly support any political stances or party.
Are you aware that Libraries are government institutions?
Yeah, that's why I mentioned being in the USMC, a government institution.
Yet, rightly so, you cannot be fired for saying that you're gay as that is considered sexual discrimination. See Bostock v. Clayton County:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County