(January 13, 2019 at 7:46 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:(January 13, 2019 at 6:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Adorable. But I don't get why you think I was confusing people with penguins. Could you spell it out for me, please?
Boru
You asked what I was talking about. Those are penguins.
Spell it out for you? Sure
P-E-N-G-U-I-N-S
(January 13, 2019 at 7:09 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, if people want to go, they have the right to go. If they don't want to go, they have the right to not go. Nothing has changed in those rights.
But, the government doesn't have the right to sponsor such an event. The people don't have the right to expect the government to promote or advertise their trip. They can do their own advertising without the government getting involved. THAT is the whole issue here.
No, the *government* was promoting it. That is the whole point. And yes, it isn't the place of the government to interfere one way or the other. But in this case, it did so.
People were promoting it. They are part of the state, so they're allowed to do that. The government can't force someone to go or penalize them for not going.
Were they promoting it as part of their official capacities? Did they use their official titles in the promotion? if so, that is not allowed.
I am a state employee. As such, I cannot promote a specific religious view in my official functions. On my own time, however, I can. In the same way, when I am at work, I cannot engage in political campaigning. I can, however, when I am away from my official post.
Do you see the differences?
