The Coming Gay Marriage Witch Hunt (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

But I'm not sure of this.

Let's leave it at that.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim - normally I think you make some good points, but I think here you got taken down a rabbit hole that you'd gladly give up if you could. The point you are making is a difference without a distinction.

For example - lets say that I think anyone who believes that Jesus rose from the dead is a complete moron for that belief and they should be fired because I don't want morons working at my company. But you can't be a Christian without believing that. As a result, I am also firing them for being a Christian. Which would violate your rule. So we are ####ed - I both violate and don't violate your firing rules.

The same example can be made for tons of religious beliefs.

I had to clarify what I wrote about religions. So far as I know, you are not allowed to discriminate in hiring. I think when it comes to ethnicity and race, that makes sense. However, I think that you SHOULD be able to fire somebody for holding views that you find offensive. Again the obvious example is that I should have the right to fire a Neo-Nazi.

Religion throws a monkey wrench into this equation. Forget Jews, because they are an ethnicity. The question becomes, do I have the right to fire someone because they are a Christian or a Muslim, or should the government prevent me from firing them. Right now, to be consistent with my other views, I am leaning toward you should have the right to fire them. But I'm not sure of this.

So it is up to the individual what they find offensive or will there be an official Offense Panel to be the god of determining if something is offensive enough to be an something which one can be fired for? So if it is up to the individual, Em as shift manager may fire some white girl for saying she finds a black man attractive. That would definitely offend him and by your standard would be justification for being fired,

 

[jon_mx]

The problem becomes if I hate Muslims, as an employer all I have to do is ask them if they are OK with gay sex when they say no, i can fire them on the spot. You are creating a system which makes it easy to discriminate against a class of people. All groups have some specific views which could be targeted and create real institutionalized racism which Tim consistently wrongly applies.

A Muslim plaintiff could show that your stated reason for termination was a pretense if, for example, you didn't also fire all non-Muslim employees who aren't okay with gay sex.

Of course you fire a some non-Muslims to show you were applying the standard fair.

Google doesn't seem to have a translator for this incoherent garbage.

I suggest you start here.

 

[NCCommish]

Play the victim much?

From the article:

Savvy conservatives and evangelicals are acknowledging, often privately, that public opinion is not in their favor. And they fear what will happen in the future to those who fought against the rising tide of public opinion.

“We have people who are losing their jobs, being smeared publicly because they hold the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank and lobbying organization. “They are called bigots. Homophobes. That is not the way we operate in a free society.”

Is this the definition of a "savvy" conservative - one that will occasionally concede to the existence of facts, even if only privately? My, how savvy!

I also like how capitalism is an unquestioned good, until suddenly businesses decide to fire people whose views could affect the corporate bottom line - as is their wont in a capitalistic economy - and suddenly that's "not the way we operate in a free society." It isn't?

How is someones belief being for or against gay marriage affect a company? Thats basically forcing someone to change beliefs so they dont get fired. Thats wrong no matter how you slice it. Personally, i can care less if you want to marry a woman, a man or a friggin billy goat. I dont like the idea of someone trying to force me by hanging something over my head....

Are you afraid of gay marriage being SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT??

I dont care about gay marriage, i dont like the idea of forcing people by threatening them to change their beliefs....

Nobody was threatened. If you are in a leadership position in a company, you actions have consequences.

It is not your beliefs, it is your actions. Taking public action that flies in the face of public opinion as a leader of a company has consequences, for the company and for you.

Well if we are talking about the tech guy everyone said his actions were very fair. That there was no hint of bigotry in his hiring or employment practices. That he led on progressive policy changes to make for a more fair workplace. Now he did donate his private money to a cause he supported. But he didn't at any time according to anyone act on those private feeling in the workplace. That one was a bit much.

 

[matuski]

Play the victim much?

From the article:

Savvy conservatives and evangelicals are acknowledging, often privately, that public opinion is not in their favor. And they fear what will happen in the future to those who fought against the rising tide of public opinion.

“We have people who are losing their jobs, being smeared publicly because they hold the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank and lobbying organization. “They are called bigots. Homophobes. That is not the way we operate in a free society.”

Is this the definition of a "savvy" conservative - one that will occasionally concede to the existence of facts, even if only privately? My, how savvy!

I also like how capitalism is an unquestioned good, until suddenly businesses decide to fire people whose views could affect the corporate bottom line - as is their wont in a capitalistic economy - and suddenly that's "not the way we operate in a free society." It isn't?

How is someones belief being for or against gay marriage affect a company? Thats basically forcing someone to change beliefs so they dont get fired. Thats wrong no matter how you slice it. Personally, i can care less if you want to marry a woman, a man or a friggin billy goat. I dont like the idea of someone trying to force me by hanging something over my head....

Are you afraid of gay marriage being SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT??

I dont care about gay marriage, i dont like the idea of forcing people by threatening them to change their beliefs....

Nobody was threatened. If you are in a leadership position in a company, you actions have consequences.

It is not your beliefs, it is your actions. Taking public action that flies in the face of public opinion as a leader of a company has consequences, for the company and for you.

Well if we are talking about the tech guy everyone said his actions were very fair. That there was no hint of bigotry in his hiring or employment practices. That he led on progressive policy changes to make for a more fair workplace. Now he did donate his private money to a cause he supported. But he didn't at any time according to anyone act on those private feeling in the workplace. That one was a bit much.

It became public and could affect the perception of the company. If it were the janitor, no one would care I imagine. But a CEO, or someone representing the company....

People get fired in Medical Sales over much less.. unfortunately if your actions are even perceived to put business at risk, you can easily be spun as a liability and removed. Regardless of the beliefs behind said actions.

 

[NCCommish]

Play the victim much?

From the article:

Savvy conservatives and evangelicals are acknowledging, often privately, that public opinion is not in their favor. And they fear what will happen in the future to those who fought against the rising tide of public opinion.

“We have people who are losing their jobs, being smeared publicly because they hold the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank and lobbying organization. “They are called bigots. Homophobes. That is not the way we operate in a free society.”

Is this the definition of a "savvy" conservative - one that will occasionally concede to the existence of facts, even if only privately? My, how savvy!

I also like how capitalism is an unquestioned good, until suddenly businesses decide to fire people whose views could affect the corporate bottom line - as is their wont in a capitalistic economy - and suddenly that's "not the way we operate in a free society." It isn't?

How is someones belief being for or against gay marriage affect a company? Thats basically forcing someone to change beliefs so they dont get fired. Thats wrong no matter how you slice it. Personally, i can care less if you want to marry a woman, a man or a friggin billy goat. I dont like the idea of someone trying to force me by hanging something over my head....

Are you afraid of gay marriage being SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT??

I dont care about gay marriage, i dont like the idea of forcing people by threatening them to change their beliefs....

Nobody was threatened. If you are in a leadership position in a company, you actions have consequences.

It is not your beliefs, it is your actions. Taking public action that flies in the face of public opinion as a leader of a company has consequences, for the company and for you.

Well if we are talking about the tech guy everyone said his actions were very fair. That there was no hint of bigotry in his hiring or employment practices. That he led on progressive policy changes to make for a more fair workplace. Now he did donate his private money to a cause he supported. But he didn't at any time according to anyone act on those private feeling in the workplace. That one was a bit much.

It became public and could affect the perception of the company. If it were the janitor, no one would care I imagine. But a CEO, or someone representing the company....

People get fired in Medical Sales over much less.. unfortunately if your actions are even perceived to put business at risk, you can easily be spun as a liability and removed. Regardless of the beliefs behind said actions.

Here's the thing. What he did in private was his to do. He never seems to have brought that to work and that is what should matter. He shouldn't have been pilloried by a community for alleged hate of them that never seems to have manifested itself in any dealings with anyone. He didn't come out and say gays are evil and shouldn't be in tech. He didn't institute work policies that harmed any minority including gays. He is allowed his personal ideas and feelings. He is or should be allowed to act on them in the quiet, private way he did. What happened there was a farce and it gives people like peens to a chance to press their point.

 

[roadkill1292]

"People like peens" is very derogatory, NCC.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Tim - normally I think you make some good points, but I think here you got taken down a rabbit hole that you'd gladly give up if you could. The point you are making is a difference without a distinction.

For example - lets say that I think anyone who believes that Jesus rose from the dead is a complete moron for that belief and they should be fired because I don't want morons working at my company. But you can't be a Christian without believing that. As a result, I am also firing them for being a Christian. Which would violate your rule. So we are ####ed - I both violate and don't violate your firing rules.

The same example can be made for tons of religious beliefs.

I had to clarify what I wrote about religions. So far as I know, you are not allowed to discriminate in hiring. I think when it comes to ethnicity and race, that makes sense. However, I think that you SHOULD be able to fire somebody for holding views that you find offensive. Again the obvious example is that I should have the right to fire a Neo-Nazi.Religion throws a monkey wrench into this equation. Forget Jews, because they are an ethnicity. The question becomes, do I have the right to fire someone because they are a Christian or a Muslim, or should the government prevent me from firing them. Right now, to be consistent with my other views, I am leaning toward you should have the right to fire them. But I'm not sure of this.

I find it offensive that you claim to be a fan of the Steelers and Lakers. You're fired. Cool?

 

[dozer]

I have one question for you guys. Do you value your teeth?

 

[jomar]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

 

[NCCommish]

"People like peens" is very derogatory, NCC.

To people?

 

[The Commish]

I said no such thing, my good man. I simply inferred that you hated freedom, since you seem troubled by the notion that companies are free to hire and fire as they see fit.

If that is not the case I would be happy to hear your clarification. Do you not think companies should have that freedom? If not, why not? Perhaps we can get together and discuss it over a few cocktails?

They don't today. Not sure where this notion comes from. A prime example is our child labor laws. We don't allow sweat shops either. We have regulations we have to follow. "Freedom to hire and fire as they see fit" is at least a partial fallacy. Though I acknowledge the sweat shop part isn't part of the hiring/firing process.

 

[NCCommish]

I said no such thing, my good man. I simply inferred that you hated freedom, since you seem troubled by the notion that companies are free to hire and fire as they see fit.

If that is not the case I would be happy to hear your clarification. Do you not think companies should have that freedom? If not, why not? Perhaps we can get together and discuss it over a few cocktails?

They don't today. Not sure where this notion comes from. A prime example is our child labor laws. We don't allow sweat shops either. We have regulations we have to follow. "Freedom to hire and fire as they see fit" is at least a partial fallacy.

I don't know. NC is a right to fire state. And it is very hard to prove discriminatory hiring practices. In theory it may be partially untrue, but in practice? I can pretty much do what I want.

 

[roadkill1292]

"People like peens" is very derogatory, NCC.

To people?

Of course.

 

[Greggity]

"People like peens" is very derogatory, NCC.

To people?

Of course.

Alot of "assuming" going on....lol

 

[GoFishTN]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

I don't remember people being willing to destroy people's livelihoods over differences in political opinions years ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[NCCommish]

"People like peens" is very derogatory, NCC.

To people?

Of course.

My bad I apologize to people everywhere for my unintentionally hurtful statement.

 

[bigbottom]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

I don't remember people being willing to destroy people's livelihoods over differences in political opinions years ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Dixie Chicks?

 

[trogg78]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

I don't remember people being willing to destroy people's livelihoods over differences in political opinions years ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

You're wrong

 

[Ilov80s]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

I don't remember people being willing to destroy people's livelihoods over differences in political opinions years ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

McCarthyism?

 

[squistion]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

I don't remember people being willing to destroy people's livelihoods over differences in political opinions years ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Does the name Joseph McCarthy ring a bell? Or the Hollywood Blacklist?

 

[Ilov80s]

I really hate this new thinking of "It's OK because I disagree with them." Very sad situation for our country.

you think this is new? it might be new for the people who are catching the brunt of it now, I guess....

I don't remember people being willing to destroy people's livelihoods over differences in political opinions years ago, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Does the name Joseph McCarthy ring a bell? Or the Hollywood Blacklist?

A. Mitchell Palmer

 

[CBusAlex]

I had to clarify what I wrote about religions. So far as I know, you are not allowed to discriminate in hiring. I think when it comes to ethnicity and race, that makes sense. However, I think that you SHOULD be able to fire somebody for holding views that you find offensive. Again the obvious example is that I should have the right to fire a Neo-Nazi.

Religion throws a monkey wrench into this equation. Forget Jews, because they are an ethnicity. The question becomes, do I have the right to fire someone because they are a Christian or a Muslim, or should the government prevent me from firing them. Right now, to be consistent with my other views, I am leaning toward you should have the right to fire them. But I'm not sure of this.

So it is up to the individual what they find offensive or will there be an official Offense Panel to be the god of determining if something is offensive enough to be an something which one can be fired for? So if it is up to the individual, Em as shift manager may fire some white girl for saying she finds a black man attractive. That would definitely offend him and by your standard would be justification for being fired,

Tim's position seems pretty clear: you can't fire someone for something like race or gender that's out of their control, but you can fire them for something like religion, political views, or attitude toward homosexuality that's ultimately their choice. It's a bit on the libertarian side, yes, but if it wasn't Tim saying it I doubt anyone would find that especially unreasonable.

What's way more unreasonable is the position taken by Jon and others that a company ought to be prohibited from firing an employee for their beliefs, even when those beliefs are actively hurting their business. That's pretty out there, IMO.

 

[jon_mx]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

 

[squistion]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

It would be if it were true, but that was not supporting McCarthyism.

 

[bigbottom]

It is funny to see the progressive mindset supporting McCarthyism.

Do you favor legislation regulating private businesses and prohibiting them from firing or refusing to hire people based upon their political beliefs?

 

[RCon]

I don't know any gay witches. Maybe Glinda?

http://christopherpenczak.com/product/gay-witchcraft/#.U6ShSyik1Jo

 

[timschochet]

I don't know any gay witches. Maybe Glinda?

http://christopherpenczak.com/product/gay-witchcraft/#.U6ShSyik1Jo

I linked this earlier.

 

[3C's]

I have one question for you guys. Do you value your teeth?

I can always buy more.

 

[RCon]

I don't know any gay witches. Maybe Glinda?

http://christopherpenczak.com/product/gay-witchcraft/#.U6ShSyik1Jo

I linked this earlier.

Yeah, I should have kept reading before posting.

 

[sublimeone]

Aren't there laws against discriminatory hiring practices? For instance, a company of 200 employees comprised of white males only... is that against the law?

 

[RCon]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

 

[timschochet]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

He changed his mind a few posts later and decided that you should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

[RCon]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

 

[timschochet]

I used to believe the way you do Ivan, but this is one aspect of libertarian thinking I have abandoned. You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Isn't religion, at its core, the exact equivalent of an "expressed view"? It's certainly not something one is born to such as race, gender, or sexual orientation.

You see, you should have read further on this one too, because I later retracted religion from what I meant to write here. You're right, it doesn't fit.

Well, except you apparently excluded some religions. You suggest it's OK to fire someone for being Muslim, but not for being Jewish? If anything, that seems a more indefensible position.

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.

As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.

As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Should I be allowed to fire people for behavior that I find objectionable, even if it doesn't interfere with their work? For example, let's say I have a major moral problem with pornography, and I see one of my employees walking into an adult bookstore. Is that fire-able under your standard?

 

[timschochet]

For those of you who believe that my viewpoint on this is inconsistent, please answer the following questions, yes or no:

Assuming you are an employer of a small company Do you have the right to fire an employee if:

1. You learn that one of your employees is a Neo-Nazi and spends his off time attending Nazi rallies.

2. You learn that a guy you hired, whom you thought was white, is actually partially black. You think blacks are mentally inferior, so you doubt this guy can do the job.

3. You learn that one of your employees is gay.

4. You learn that one of your employees is a Christian.

5. You learn that one of your employees is making anti-gay comments.

If all of your answers are "yes, you should have the right to fire him" or "no, you should not have the right to fire him", then you're already 100% consistent. But if, as in my case, some of your answers are "yes" and some are "no", please explain what the distinctions should be.

 

[timschochet]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.

As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Should I be allowed to fire people for behavior that I find objectionable, even if it doesn't interfere with their work? For example, let's say I have a major moral problem with pornography, and I see one of my employees walking into an adult bookstore. Is that fire-able under your standard?

My opinion is yes, you should have the right in this circumstance.

 

[Gr00vus]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity.

X

 

[timschochet]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity.

X

Really? I'm an atheist. Am I no longer a member of the tribe?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.

As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Should I be allowed to fire people for behavior that I find objectionable, even if it doesn't interfere with their work? For example, let's say I have a major moral problem with pornography, and I see one of my employees walking into an adult bookstore. Is that fire-able under your standard?

My opinion is yes, you should have the right in this circumstance.

Okay. Now let's change the hypothetical a little. Let's now say that I have a problem with men having sex with other men, and I see one of my employees holding hands with his boyfriend while walking down the street.

 

[timschochet]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.

As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Should I be allowed to fire people for behavior that I find objectionable, even if it doesn't interfere with their work? For example, let's say I have a major moral problem with pornography, and I see one of my employees walking into an adult bookstore. Is that fire-able under your standard?

My opinion is yes, you should have the right in this circumstance.

Okay. Now let's change the hypothetical a little. Let's now say that I have a problem with men having sex with other men, and I see one of my employees holding hands with his boyfriend while walking down the street.

No. You should not have the right in that circumstance.

And BTW, I knew you would come up with this hypothetical. You were being a little obvious about it.

I already know that your own position is that you should be able to fire anyone, period. But I think there can be distinctions made, even if I get into rabbit holes trying to explain them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And BTW, I knew you would come up with this hypothetical. You were being a little obvious about it.

 

[Gr00vus]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity.

X

Really? I'm an atheist. Am I no longer a member of the tribe?

You mean do you still self associate with Jews culturally even though you don't practice the religion? It seems like you do. Would an Orthodox person consider you a Jew - absolutely not.

Suppose instead of converting to atheism, you converted to Islam - are you still a Jew?

 

[timschochet]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity.

X

Really? I'm an atheist. Am I no longer a member of the tribe?

You mean do you still self associate with Jews culturally even though you don't practice the religion? It seems like you do. Would an Orthodox person consider you a Jew - absolutely not.

Suppose instead of converting to atheism, you converted to Islam - are you still a Jew?

Damn good question. I don't know.

But as I was a reformed Jew to start with, an Orthodox Jew might not regard me as a Jew- though then again they might, depending on the circumstances. By the way, one doesn't "convert to atheism".

 

[Gr00vus]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity.

X

Really? I'm an atheist. Am I no longer a member of the tribe?

You mean do you still self associate with Jews culturally even though you don't practice the religion? It seems like you do. Would an Orthodox person consider you a Jew - absolutely not.

Suppose instead of converting to atheism, you converted to Islam - are you still a Jew?

Damn good question. I don't know.

But as I was a reformed Jew to start with, an Orthodox Jew might not regard me as a Jew- though then again they might, depending on the circumstances. By the way, one doesn't "convert to atheism".

You knew what I meant.

 

[Gr00vus]

Is Rod Carew's ethnicity Jewish?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What's way more unreasonable is the position taken by Jon and others that a company ought to be prohibited from firing an employee for their beliefs, even when those beliefs are actively hurting their business. That's pretty out there, IMO.

I was initially quite surprised when Jon took that position, because he's usually more of a righty than a lefty. The traditional righty position is to side with employers over employees on these kinds of issues. Freedom of contract, less government regulation, etc. The lefty position is to side with employees. The government needs to make everything fair, etc.

But then I realized that there's a new dynamic in play. Mozilla dumped its CEO for supporting Prop 8. That has apparently made people on the right a lot more suspicious of employers being able to fire employees willy-nilly -- just like the Duke Lacrosse case made people on the right suddenly a lot more sensitive to the rights of criminal defendants (and people on the left less sensitive to them).

It's all fun and games until one's own ideological teammates are burdened.

 

[NCCommish]

Being a Jew is also a matter of ethnicity. You shouldn't be able to fire an Arab because he is an Arab.

As I pointed out earlier, I acknowledge that I get myself stuck in a rabbit hole here. But that's too bad. I don't want to live in a society in which you're not allowed to fire people for pretty much any reason you want. And I also don't want to live in a society which allows people to fire employees because they're black or Chinese or gay. So I'm forced to come up with a compromise between the two competing ideas. I'd like it to be more consistent than it is.

Should I be allowed to fire people for behavior that I find objectionable, even if it doesn't interfere with their work? For example, let's say I have a major moral problem with pornography, and I see one of my employees walking into an adult bookstore. Is that fire-able under your standard?

My opinion is yes, you should have the right in this circumstance.

Okay. Now let's change the hypothetical a little. Let's now say that I have a problem with men having sex with other men, and I see one of my employees holding hands with his boyfriend while walking down the street.

No. You should not have the right in that circumstance.

And BTW, I knew you would come up with this hypothetical. You were being a little obvious about it.

I already know that your own position is that you should be able to fire anyone, period. But I think there can be distinctions made, even if I get into rabbit holes trying to explain them.

So Ivan can fire someone for buying gay porn but not for being gay is that right?