Comments on: Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/ Politically-Conservative Web 2.0 Activists Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:34:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Most U.S. Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes in the U.S. http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-8756 Most U.S. Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes in the U.S. Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:55:06 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-8756 [...] Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...] [...] Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...]

]]> By: Sadly, No! » Why McCain Avoids Malkin, Sammich-Jihad Edition http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-6836 Sadly, No! » Why McCain Avoids Malkin, Sammich-Jihad Edition Sun, 25 May 2008 17:28:28 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-6836 [...] corporation with an international bent toward subverting the U.S. Constitution and acting as socialism’s change agent. Don’t believe it? Check out its “Helping Society” page, outlining its “diversity” and [...] [...] corporation with an international bent toward subverting the U.S. Constitution and acting as socialism’s change agent. Don’t believe it? Check out its “Helping Society” page, outlining its “diversity” and [...]

]]> By: Socialist “Curriculum” cannot penetrate home schools…therefore, they must be outlawed. (Updated - Corporate America Agrees) http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-6829 Socialist “Curriculum” cannot penetrate home schools…therefore, they must be outlawed. (Updated - Corporate America Agrees) Sun, 25 May 2008 14:11:17 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-6829 [...] corporation with an international bent toward subverting the U.S. Constitution and acting as socialism’s change agent. Don’t believe it? Check out its “Helping Society” page, outlining its [...] [...] corporation with an international bent toward subverting the U.S. Constitution and acting as socialism’s change agent. Don’t believe it? Check out its “Helping Society” page, outlining its [...]

]]> By: Why America is Doomed (Unless We Change) [Part 2] http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-6320 Why America is Doomed (Unless We Change) [Part 2] Mon, 12 May 2008 12:31:07 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-6320 [...] Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...] [...] Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...]

]]> By: Why America Is Doomed! (Unless We Change) [Part 1] http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-6240 Why America Is Doomed! (Unless We Change) [Part 1] Sat, 10 May 2008 20:45:46 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-6240 [...] Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...] [...] Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...]

]]> By: More Subversion of the Constitution through the American Corporation http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-3113 More Subversion of the Constitution through the American Corporation Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:28:03 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-3113 [...] What am I talking about? I recently did a two-part series on Corporate Diversity programs. (See Corporate Diversity…Subverting the Constitution? and Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...] [...] What am I talking about? I recently did a two-part series on Corporate Diversity programs. (See Corporate Diversity…Subverting the Constitution? and Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent? [...]

]]> By: arclightzero http://forthardknox.com/2007/07/16/corporate-diversity%e2%80%a6socialism%e2%80%99s-agent-for-change/#comment-767 arclightzero Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:10:52 +0000 http://forthardknox.com/?p=314#comment-767 There is a good point in all of this, and it brings up an age old question. Does the first amendment apply on private property? An employer generally can set rules for speech and conduct and an employee cannot claim that they can break those rules in the name of "first amendment rights." On the other hand, that same company can claim first amendment rights in it's own speech or conduct. It's an interesting double standard. However, where it really gets interesting is when you take into consideration the fact that the government can reach in and control speech and conduct in a company through nondiscrimination laws, which makes you wonder just how much control a company actually has on its own property when it comes to speech. In theory, they should have the final say as to what happens on their property. However in practice it is not so simple. The big question then becomes where does this control actually end? Can nondiscrimination laws interfere with the company's business where free speech ordinarily would be protected? Looking at the prevailing example, if a Christian bookstore expressed anti-gay sentiment, could a gay employee claim discrimination and legally go after them, or does the shop's right to free speech prevail. In simpler times, that answer would be very clear, but in this day and age of ridiculous nondiscrimination laws, it's hard to say for sure who would win. There is a good point in all of this, and it brings up an age old question. Does the first amendment apply on private property? An employer generally can set rules for speech and conduct and an employee cannot claim that they can break those rules in the name of “first amendment rights.” On the other hand, that same company can claim first amendment rights in it’s own speech or conduct. It’s an interesting double standard.

However, where it really gets interesting is when you take into consideration the fact that the government can reach in and control speech and conduct in a company through nondiscrimination laws, which makes you wonder just how much control a company actually has on its own property when it comes to speech. In theory, they should have the final say as to what happens on their property. However in practice it is not so simple.

The big question then becomes where does this control actually end? Can nondiscrimination laws interfere with the company’s business where free speech ordinarily would be protected? Looking at the prevailing example, if a Christian bookstore expressed anti-gay sentiment, could a gay employee claim discrimination and legally go after them, or does the shop’s right to free speech prevail.

In simpler times, that answer would be very clear, but in this day and age of ridiculous nondiscrimination laws, it’s hard to say for sure who would win.

]]>