🚀 go-pugleaf

Lupine wrote:
> 
> In article <6jcejp$msc$2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, NightSerf
> <acs6j@Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> 
> > In va.general Iam@aohell.cum wrote:
> > > Any Corporation that TELLS you what kind of Car you should drive CAN
> > > KISS MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > > I Drive a MERCURY!!!! I have seen "snob-cars" getting stolen more than
> > > a Ford, Chevy or a Dodge!! (Doesn't Mean That Mine Can't Be Stolen)
> >
> > > WHO CARES about what care You drive?  YOU DO!! BE PROUD!!!
> > > Those Companies are just looking for something to complain about!!
> > > FUCK THAT!!!
> > > That is violating YOUR CONSTITIONAL RIGHTS!!!
> > > Ford Mustangs ARE NOT "redneck"
> > > Those who call Mustangs "redneck" choose to HATE rednecks!!
> > > Mercedes, Beamers, and Lexus are known as "BLACK-cars" (You guess why)
> >
> > > The NEXT time a company tells you where to park because of what kind
> > > of car you drive!! TELL THEM TO "TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT UP (their)
> > > ASS!!
> >
> > > Who says that?
> > > ANYONE CAN!! AND THEY WILL!!
> >
> > > It's Not What We THINK!!
> > > It's WHAT WE KNOW!!
> >
> > Perhaps you would take the trouble to cite the section of the
> > Constitution that guarantees the rights you have in mind...
> 
> What car you drive off-company/private property would possibly be
> protected by the 1st ammendment ( provided of course, your particular pool
> of choices all conform to the relevent laws/regulations. ).

It would only be protected if the government were the one telling you
you couldn't drive it. The Constitution doesn't apply to private
relationships/contracts. It only limits the power of the government. If
I wanted to pay Davis 100 bucks to shut the hell up, that would clearly
be constitutional; so is an employer agreeing to employ a person so long
as that person only buys Morgan Plus 8s. 

Even if it were the government, the chances of you successfully arguing
that the type of car you drove was in some way protected speech under
the 1st Amendment would be nil. A better argument would be a 5th
Amendment "takings" contention, but that would only get you compensation
for the loss of your property, not the property itself.