What’s not true? I’m saying those opposed to gay marriage deserve every right to express their opinion. Just because they deserve it doesn’t mean it will be tolerated by everyone on the other side…and vice versa. It should be tolerated though…it needs to be for civil discourse to actually work. If you can’t even tolerate listening to opposing viewpoints, you’re what’s wrong with America right now (the Royal “you” there, not you palantir).
Now, as a libertarian, I’d argue your example of Brendan Eich played out exactly how it should have. He was fired because his costumers refused (or would ultimately refuse) to be associated with someone with those views (against gay marriage in San Fran? That’s not going to help your business). That’s the free market in action. Chick-fil-A is an example in the opposite direction. After all that crap broke, did you drive by a Chick-fil-a? They were packed. Conservatives came out in droves to support them. Unfortunately for Brendan, most conservatives don’t know they difference between Mozilla and Godzilla so there was no support for them.
Just becaue you have the right to say what you want, doesn’t mean your free from any ensuing backlash.
Edit to Inky - Again, I’m not disagreeing with you. There’s plenty of intolerance on the side of gay rights and every other hot button issue. They’re not in the right either. The problem is when you get people on either side of the issue that are so dogmatic they absolutely refuse to engage in any sort of conversation with the other side. Any time someone so strongly believes they are right they won’t even listen to someone on the other side, or worse, they actually hate the other side, then we get to a bad spot. The far left is every bit as guilty of this as the far right.
Brendan Eich was fired more because his employees didn’t want to work for a guy that donated to an anti gay marriage cause, not due to customer retaliation. Isnt his freedom restricted if he can’t get a job based on his political views?
Now if firing people for their political views is acceptable, how is that any different to firing people for being gay?
But you bring up an interesting point - if customers retaliate against doing business with a company headed by an anti-SSM guy, to you that would be grounds for dismissal on purely business reasons. Similarly one could come up with a case for firing a gay employee by saying “oh, our customers don’t want a gay guy”. You think that would work in court?
And let’s not forget *how* Eich was “outed”. He privately donated to causes supporting traditional marriage. In California, such donations are made public. The Gaystapo actually pulled these records and searched through the names *and* addresses of anybody who donated to these causes. In some cases, homes were vandalized. In other’s, people were threatened. In Eich’s case, his career was severely damaged. I don’t recall any gays coming to this guy’s defense, either.
It’s absolutely laughable to say that this group is anything but “intolerant” (unless you use the newer Orwellian definition).
An immediate family member of mine works for Mozilla so I’m pretty familiar with the office culture there (played ping pong and drank beer in their break room. Pretty awesome place really). Were the employees upset? Of course. You can’t walk into any office in SF and say your against gay marriage and expect to come out on top. But, it was more the customers they were worried about. At the time, Mozilla was engaged in very serious talks about becoming the default search engine on multiple high-profile platforms. And, seeing as how pretty much every tech company is extremely liberal, yes, it was certain to affect their business.
Is his freedom restricted? Absolutely not. He’s free to apply anywhere and companies are free to pass on him. Are his options more limited now than they were a couple years ago? Of course. Every action has consequences. But he’s still free to speak his mind. But no one is entitled to a job so, he’s temporarily exiled.
I fully admit I don’t have the answer to this one so I have to defer to the law. Political affiliation/beliefs aren’t a protected class under anti-discrimination laws. So, yes, I suppose you could get fired for spouting off your political ideology while at work. Presently, at the federal level, you can still fire someone for being gay too. Twenty-nine states have protected them, but for the rest there’s nothing stopping a boss from coming up to an employee and saying, “your fired for being gay.” And, so far, it’s held up fine in court.
Now, if I put on my libertarian hat, I’d say companies should be able to hire and fire anyone they want. The only way this would really work, however, would be if there was full transparency so customers could act accordingly. You want to buy widgets from a company that only hires jewish, gay, communists? Have at it. The problem is full transparency is lacking so people can’t make informed decisions. If I can buy widgets from two companies, all else being equal, I’d go with the one with the better corporate culture (whatever that means to me). How long do you suppose a company that refused to hire any white people would last? Ok, we’re the majority so that’s a bad example. But, even a company that openly admitted they wouldn’t hire non-whites would have an extremely narrow audience. I wouldn’t rush to buy their stock. But, alas, like most libertarian ideals this one is nearly impossible to implement.
He didn’t. He donated, in private, to a political organization that backed Proposition 8. He didn’t speak publicly about it or, at least as described in the media, in the office. He was fired for holding a private politlca and possibly religious belief. This only came out because California passed an opens record law requiring such donations to be made public.
Is this the kind of environment we’re looking for in the US? That you can be fired for your private political or religious beliefs? What if a for-profit company refused to hire Democrats? Since blacks are 90% Democrat, this would be considered a disproportionate impact violation. And what if McDonald’s refused to hire Muslims because management didn’t like their belief system? It’s really no different.
just a couple of comments and i’ll slither into the abyss.
This world is complicated, even more so in the ‘free’ USA. Those who have succeeded well, socially and financially, have done so by understanding the social rules which are dynamically changing over time. You do not, by anymeans, need to ‘conform’ to said social rules but you need to understand that social rules will dedicate a certain degree of your future. back in the 50’s it was socially ‘ok’ to call a black person a nigger, today it will likely get you killed. Does a person have the ‘right’ to say nigger? Sure they have freedom of speech, but the consequence is more than likely career suicide - it is no longer, by rule of society, okay to call a black person a nigger. It was okay in the early 2000’s to oppose gay marriage and refuse service to openly gay people, if you do it now you’ll be publically chastised.
Anyone who truly beleives we can just skip around town expelling our opinions without any sort of negative reprocussion is on the same lines as people who dress like dirt bags and get pulled over by police. [Insert ragemode BlackSwan]
*slithers out
Edited to achieve correct time frame of gay-hating.
In the 1950’s? The first time a *slim* polled majority expressed support for gay marriage was four years ago. Back in the 1990’s 70% were opposed. Obama openly opposed gay marriage until a few months after the slim majority was polled (i.e. political expediency for his base).
This is due, in no small degree, to a constant barrage of media characterizations like yours: oppose gay marriage and you’re an anachronistic bigot. Many people are a victim of propaganda, having finally succumbed to over a decade of tiresome effects.
You’re moving goalposts now, it’s not about how society treats this particular form of speech, but whether it should be protected by law. So I will ask again, why should sexual orientation and race be protected from discrimination, and not personal and political views?
Btw, I think it’s interesting that you use the “society will disapprove” argument to this. Somehow I don’t see this argument pop up when people get bombed for drawing Muhammed cartoons, then it’s always “We have the right to Free Speech!”. Why is that? I recall the long sermonizing given to Muslims about freedom of speech…
So when it is convenient, you will use the argument “society will treat you like an asshole/kill you if you call somebody a n*gger”, and when it is convenient, you will use “freedom of speech”. So, which one is it?
FYI: Brendan Eich didn’t skip around down expelling his opinions, he made a private donation to his cause, there’s no evidence he actually discriminated against gays, nor was it for any public comments that he got in trouble.
I only regret that an innocent thread about male infiltration of an isolated all female college has descended into a heated discussion on social issues.
To your first paragraph, why are the two mutually exclusive? Freedom of speech just means you’re protected from a legal standpoint. It doesn’t mean the people you offend won’t get pissed. And, again, I’m not saying people should have to censor themselves either. In a perfect world, people could speak their mind and others would choose to declare that person reasonable or an assclown. Instead, sometimes people get violent. That’s just the reality so it’s something everyone should consider before bringing up sensitive issues in mixed company (I don’t mean that as in “when women are around.” More like company that aren’t your close friends).
As for Brendan, he should have known donations are public record. I have zero problem with his donation being publicised. That gets me closer to my ideal state of information transparency. I do not have an opinion on how it played out other than what I stated above.
From a legal standpoint, protected classes have been developed in order to protect minorities from social backlash. Since those who oppose legalzed gay marriage have fallen into a minority, we should be afforded the same protections as blacks or gays. If a homosexual can’t be fired for being openly homosexual, then someone who opposes gay marriage be protected from termination for expressing his views as well.
Regarding Brenden, public disclosure of donations was new that very year, so there was no precedence of threats and violence resulting from political donations. It’s not reasonable that he assume that he would be targeted by the Gaystapo. It’s also quite astounding that you’re defending a system (public donation disclosure) that has been proven to make victms of conservative donors. The outcome, of course, is that conservatives will feel unsafe donating to a cause they believe in for fear of a mob backlash.
I’m inclined to agree with Sweep on this one. If you read the First Amendment, it says:
“CONGRESS shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
It doesn’t say, “Thou shalt never fire somebody for calling another person a .” People still have a right to take their business elsewhere, and employers still have a right to protect their brand.
^Moreover, in communities like mine, if I were to hire an openly gay person, it would probably cost us a lot of business. Sure, nobody would say “the reason I’m going someplace else is because of that yag you’ve got on your staff”, but that would be the reason.
Should I be forced to hire this person? Or to keep this person after they came out? Why should I lose business simply because of the left agenda?
@inky - if you were a small business owner, and you were in the position of either firing a gay person, or losing 25% of your revenues, which would you do?
Before you answer–remember that if you lose 25% of your revenues, you’ll have to fire two people. Just sayin…