This is what happens when people see past your garbage.

END OF MESSAGE

And, not a smart business move!

Looks like Papa got slammed..

Well, fuck his ass, couldn't happen to better dick..Sometime just don't say shit.
And by the way..I liked his pizza..it wasn't that bad

hpygolky here is what he said in the article link.
I love how karma works on people like this scumbag.

-- Modified on 12/24/2017 12:12:56 AM

YES........it does.

Political speech in the workplace is not protected speech - period. An analysis by the well respected law firm of Holland and Knight broached this subject during the 2016 elections, prior to the Kapernick protests. That being noted, there are topics that can be discussed related to wage and labor laws, but that is part of employment and not political speech.

Law Firm of Holland & Knight

"Misconception 1: Employees Have a Constitutional Right to Talk "Politics" at Work

Wrong.

Employees, as well as many employers, commonly but mistakenly believe that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "freedom of speech" at work. In fact, the First Amendment applies only to government action and neither limits the rights of private employers to regulate employees' communications nor provides any constitutional right for those workers to express thoughts or opinions at work. As a result, there is no constitutionally protected right of "free speech" in the offices and factories of private employers. Although employees may be entitled to express their views freely on their own time or on a soapbox in the park, they have no such wide-ranging constitutional rights at work. Absent rights provided by one of the limited exceptions discussed below, there are no legal protections for political activities in the workplace, so private employers generally may refuse to hire, adjust pay/benefits and even discharge "at will" employees because of their political views.2 In short, "political discrimination" often is not unlawful discrimination.

Many employers do have policies limiting the discussion of political candidates and issues at work because of the risks of unlimited "free speech" in the workplace. For example, although there is no general federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or actions, sometimes seemingly neutral conversations about "politics" can lead to claims of employer discrimination, harassment or retaliation violating federal or state discrimination laws.

When Trump or his supporters, don't like someone or something.

Then they want to talk about US law??

Trump and his supporters should be the last ones talking about anybody's Constitutional rights in this country!

Since Trump does not follow it himself and his supporters don't care themselves.

It was a peaceful protest and attention needed to be brought to the issues about cops killing unarmed people in this country.

Trump and his cult wanted to change the subject and play the race card instead of dealing with the real issues.

-- Modified on 12/27/2017 5:35:32 AM

You mean the Sheila Jackson Lee defense?

To the pizza boy that would have come from the trump tax bill. Hell the kid can go work at ATT, opps they're laying off people after dishing out those 1k bonus...Layoffs and bonuses, some how that doesn't sell right to the Joe Blow being laid off.

You probably should have read the entire article.  In all fairness you did link it.  Basically what it says is that the seminal rule is that an employer can prohibit political speech, but there are so many exceptions and other laws such as State law and the NLRA that the rule is actually more holes than cheese.  It warns employers that if it is going to create a rule it had better do so very carefully and it’s probably better not to in the first place.  

Besides, it was Trump who is championing the restriction of an NFL player taking a knee, so the First Amendment violation is clear.

The entire alert is what you’d expect from an employer defense firm.  The plaintiffs side has so many ways around it so as to render it meaningless.

The only exceptions are those related to NLRB rules, not constitutional. Political speech in the workplace  is not protected under the first amendment - period. The only speech that is 'protected' is based on labor law, i.e hours, wages, etc.

I discount your entire argument as speculative and opinion, not based in fact. I give you snowflake points for trying, but none for reading comprehension.  

There is no swiss cheese, only your 'wine'ing.

You didnt understand any of it but you did manage to incorrectly mention “NLRB rules”.  Its the National Labor Relations Act NLRA that implicates protected speech into private employment.  The NLRB is the agency that primarily enforces the NLRA.   Its rules are mainly procedural for its enforcement function.

But again the issue is moot as applied to NFL players because it is Trump, a government actor that is attacking their constitutional rights.

I  laughed at what has to be one of the most ignorant things I have read on these boards -  “its [the law] not the Constitution”.  You obviously flunked civics.

-- Modified on 12/28/2017 12:06:29 AM

First, when you quote someone you don't get to change the quote to fit your purposes. What you wrote is why people believe in fake news. You even wrote it incorrectly to bolster your position to make you look correct. Therefore you've already undermined your argument - which is clearly wrong.

The NRLA is not the constitution. Therefore, those screaming about the First Amendment are wrong, like you. That was the first point. You are not a lawyer, not even close to the firm of Holland and Knight - who clearly state this is not a First Amendment issue. So let's get that first part straight and clear. You are clearly wrong on that part despite your protestation otherwise.

Second, Your argument about NLRB rules versus the NRLA is laughable. You're diving into semantics to prove your point. The issue is that political speech is not protected speech, period. Please show me where the NRLB enforces the NRLA on political speech - you can't. Despite assertions of 'swiss cheese' and 'so many holes'. If that is the case, go ahead and do some research for a change, versus spouting off opinions. Specific examples, go do your home work.

Next time please use cited sources for your 'paper'.  I know you're wrong because you've stooped to name calling and nit-picking versus substantive facts.

Flunked civics?  Geezus dude, how old are you? I am no longer responding to your posts because of your histrionics. Enjoy the last word, you're welcome.

-- Modified on 12/28/2017 2:42:11 AM

Also don't play the victim now yourself.

-- Modified on 12/28/2017 9:10:41 AM

 At the time of your Huff & Puff article Papa Johns stock was trading around $ 23.00. Today it is hovering near $ 53.00
   
 Personally I wouldn't eat Papa John's, Dominoes,  Pizza Hut  or any rot gut chain Pizza. To each their own.  
 Like beauty taste is engrained in the senses of the  individual.
 
   In reference to your article's content, many corporations now make  much more money after the ACA was forced on consumers and corporations.  
 
   Before the ACA many large companies provided Health insurance and other benefits to full time employees, more often than not  a full time employee was considered an employee working minimum 30 hours a week.  
  After the ACA was passed by politicians with absolutely  no foresight and many not taking the time to read and understand  the entire bill they signed, a number of  large companies quit hiring full time employees and switched to part timers given new employees no  more than 29 hours a week.

  In essence the ACA helped Corporations make more money with the 30 hour Health care rule.  
   
   Do you consider it Karma, TV will earn close to 500 million less in 2017 on NFL advertising than they did in 2016?  

  I'd like to take this opportunity to thank  NFL players dissing my country causing me to do something more enjoyable with my time, whenever  they are on TV.  
   IMO cheap  Pizza is similar to NFL football, I don't miss it in the least.     TYVM

I don’t think your analysis would apply to the NFL anthem protests. As you say, there is no First Amendment right to political speech in the workplace of a  private employer but ...period? No.  It depends on where that workplace is, and whether the government is involved in stifling the speech.

          If Trump tells NFL owners to fire any player who takes a knee, and an NFL owner does so, and the publicly owned sports arena is deemed to be a public forum, then the NFL owner has acted as the agent of the government and would arguably violate the player’s First Amendment rights. The discharge would be a breach of contract. Remember, the law is generally implied into every employment contract, or at a minimum is deemed to establish public policy.

        So Jinx was not entirely wrong.  The theory is there, and until the SCOTUS has spoken on the issue it is an open question. Beware of legal experts who tell you that the FA does not apply to private employers and consider the matter closed.

That is a pretty fair restatement of my points and the law that applies to employment contracts.  Another point is that if an NFL team fired a player to curry favor with Trump of in exchange for a political benefit, then the team is acting as an agent of Trump and is essentially a government actor, implicating free speech rights.  

Moreover, if a team fires a player simply for taking a knee, while the player could not sue directly for a violation of free speech, he could point to that reason as a basis for outrageous conduct warranting punitive damages in his wrongful termination in breach of contract claim.  It’s a form of employer harassment, which the linked article does indeed point out.