7 ms·

You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think i

You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. * - By "might", I mean "has happened a lot for a long time". LGTB people have faced discrimination for a long time for wanting to live their life in a way that harms literally no one. Anti-LGBT people facing consequences for their actions to discriminate against others in a way that benefits literally no one is a relatively recent occurrence.

manfredo 8y ago
> You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? No political views should be inherently fireable offenses, only things like harassment that have nonpartisan criteria. E.g. Supporting proposition 8 is not a fireable offense, actually calling gay employees slurs is. Conversely, opposing stricter border controls is not a fireable offense on its own, saying that anyone who supports Trump's border policies is a Nazi that deserves to be punched is a fireable offense because it's a threat of violence. Firing must be made on non-partisan criteria. > Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. Should anyone that supported the McCain–Feingold Act (the act overturned by the Citizens United case), or Chicago's handgun ban be fired as well? Both of those were found to be infringements on people's constitutional liberties. Again, this is what I'm referring to when I say that people many of the justifications for Eich's termination aren't really well thought out, and end up justifying the termination of lots of other people as well. The blanket statement that a certain political view should be a fireable offense because it was later determined to be unconstitutional is going to end up justifying the firing of lots of other people.
- dagenix 8y ago
  If all political views are valid, what about someone that has documented pro-segregation views? Is that person qualified to make decisions that impact the lives of a diverse workforce? If not, where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to make a strawman argument - I'm seriously asking why would this be any different? The problem isn't that he had some thought in his head - its that he took that thought in his head and turned it into action. And those publicly documented actions made it impossible for his employees to trust him to make decisions in their best interest. Having the trust of his employees is 100% part of his job - the fact that he lacked that made him unfit to be CEO. Supporting something that turns out to be unconstitutional clearly shouldn't be a fireable offense. But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose. I probably made a mistake in mentioning it was overturned at all - I'm just saying, he continued to argue for something that wasn't even relevant anymore - in 2014 when this controversy erupted, same sex marriages were actively occurring in California. It seems likely that some of his employees may have benefited from this. And, yet, in 2014 he continued to support the prohibition of same-sex marriage - actively advocating against the life choices that his employees were making at that very time.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Should people that donate to women-only colleges be fired? After all, that's supporting a type of segregation, and you didn't specify which type of segregation you're referring to. But to answer your point seriously (presuming that you're referring to Jim Crow era segregation), the people that genuinely support those kinds of heinous policies will almost certainly end up committing actual harassment and be fired with cause. I haven't met a single pro-segregationist that hadn't used slurs against Africans within seconds of making their views known. Granted, my sample size isn't particular big. Banning certain political views almost always going to harm overall inclusion. According to some of the first results on Google 33% of Americans oppose gay marriage [1]. For comparison, the total African American population in the us is under 14% - less than half. Firing an employee for anti-gay marriage politics and then turning around and claiming it is attempting to be an inclusive company is hypocrisy. Refraining from firing people regardless of their political views would not cause the world to fall apart. Government employers are legally obligated to tolerate employees political views by the 1st Amendment, and can only fire them for other just causes. Over 20 million people are employed by the Federal, State, and local governments in the US so respecting employers' politics clearly feasible. > But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose. The people that supported Proposition 8 can also cite what they believe are reasonable justifications for their support of Proposition 8. Sure, you may not agree that their justifications are reasonable. But that works both ways. Plenty of gun-rights supporters would claim that gun control is "merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose". So in your moral framework, a gun-rights supporting company would be equally justified in firing pro-gun control employees as Mozilla was in firing Eich, just as long as they consider gun control to be "merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose". I really hope you realize that you're supporting the ability of a privileged elite (stockholders, CEOs, managers, etc.) to police their employees' political activity and coerce them into political submission through the threat of termination. Sure, bosses where I live (a liberal costal city) are usually liberal. But in much of the country, they're not. 1. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-percentage-americans-support-gay-marriage-poll-finds-n799376 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-percentage-am...
5thbootloader 8y ago
I don't believe being against LGBT marriages necessarily implies that you are against all forms of LGBT relationships / lifestyles. Marriage has become regulated by the state due to its implications on all citizens. Just because someone doesn't agree with how the state legislates sexual relationships doesn't mean they should be antogonized. Their views can be beneficial to the argument regardless of which side they take. Simply shutting down conflicting political ideologies doesn't really lead to any rational discussion on the matter. To give an example, consider the current legal strife with gun control. Some people want the state to increase gun regulation and others don't. If each party simply supports their case by saying the other party is discriminating against their way of life, the discussion wouldn't lead to anything sensibly intelligent. People should have the ability to defend any argument they wish, so long as they remain civil about it. This is especially the case in matters which actually concern the people themselves. Their propositions may be wrong and detrimental to society but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to express their thoughts.
- dagenix 8y ago
  Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech. In 2008, he spoke, via a $1,000 public donation, of his opinion to support Prop 8. It wasn't just some random thought - he had a very specific outcome in mind that he wanted to see enacted that would impact _other_ people's lives. He got the consequence he wanted - Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was outlawed. In 2014, Mozilla employed exercised that very same right to speak against his fitness to be CEO. The consequence of that was that he was forced to resign. He doesn't get to pick and choose which consequences he'll allow. Once he speaks, other people get to respond, and thats what they did.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    > Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech This is actually not true. For example, it would have been illegal for Mozilla to fire Eich for his donation. This is because political activity is considered protected in California (like gender, race, etc.), so firing someone for making a political statement or for donating to a political cause is illegal. We will probably learn more about this defense as the Google/Damore case proceeds.

manfredo 8y ago

> You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to be a CEO? Anything? No political views should be inherently fireable offenses, only things like harassment that have nonpartisan criteria. E.g. Supporting proposition 8 is not a fireable offense, actually calling gay employees slurs is. Conversely, opposing stricter border controls is not a fireable offense on its own, saying that anyone who supports Trump's border policies is a Nazi that deserves to be punched is a fireable offense because it's a threat of violence. Firing must be made on non-partisan criteria. > Views on gay marriage shifted rapidly between 2008 and 2014. I think its wrong to assume that just because 52% of people voted to support Prop 8 in 2008 that 6 years later opinions hadn't changed. And lets not forget that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 - 4 years before he was made CEO and continued to publicly support Prop 8. Should anyone that supported the McCain–Feingold Act (the act overturned by the Citizens United case), or Chicago's handgun ban be fired as well? Both of those were found to be infringements on people's constitutional liberties. Again, this is what I'm referring to when I say that people many of the justifications for Eich's termination aren't really well thought out, and end up justifying the termination of lots of other people as well. The blanket statement that a certain political view should be a fireable offense because it was later determined to be unconstitutional is going to end up justifying the firing of lots of other people.

dagenix 8y ago
If all political views are valid, what about someone that has documented pro-segregation views? Is that person qualified to make decisions that impact the lives of a diverse workforce? If not, where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to make a strawman argument - I'm seriously asking why would this be any different? The problem isn't that he had some thought in his head - its that he took that thought in his head and turned it into action. And those publicly documented actions made it impossible for his employees to trust him to make decisions in their best interest. Having the trust of his employees is 100% part of his job - the fact that he lacked that made him unfit to be CEO. Supporting something that turns out to be unconstitutional clearly shouldn't be a fireable offense. But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose. I probably made a mistake in mentioning it was overturned at all - I'm just saying, he continued to argue for something that wasn't even relevant anymore - in 2014 when this controversy erupted, same sex marriages were actively occurring in California. It seems likely that some of his employees may have benefited from this. And, yet, in 2014 he continued to support the prohibition of same-sex marriage - actively advocating against the life choices that his employees were making at that very time.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Should people that donate to women-only colleges be fired? After all, that's supporting a type of segregation, and you didn't specify which type of segregation you're referring to. But to answer your point seriously (presuming that you're referring to Jim Crow era segregation), the people that genuinely support those kinds of heinous policies will almost certainly end up committing actual harassment and be fired with cause. I haven't met a single pro-segregationist that hadn't used slurs against Africans within seconds of making their views known. Granted, my sample size isn't particular big. Banning certain political views almost always going to harm overall inclusion. According to some of the first results on Google 33% of Americans oppose gay marriage [1]. For comparison, the total African American population in the us is under 14% - less than half. Firing an employee for anti-gay marriage politics and then turning around and claiming it is attempting to be an inclusive company is hypocrisy. Refraining from firing people regardless of their political views would not cause the world to fall apart. Government employers are legally obligated to tolerate employees political views by the 1st Amendment, and can only fire them for other just causes. Over 20 million people are employed by the Federal, State, and local governments in the US so respecting employers' politics clearly feasible. > But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose. The people that supported Proposition 8 can also cite what they believe are reasonable justifications for their support of Proposition 8. Sure, you may not agree that their justifications are reasonable. But that works both ways. Plenty of gun-rights supporters would claim that gun control is "merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose". So in your moral framework, a gun-rights supporting company would be equally justified in firing pro-gun control employees as Mozilla was in firing Eich, just as long as they consider gun control to be "merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose". I really hope you realize that you're supporting the ability of a privileged elite (stockholders, CEOs, managers, etc.) to police their employees' political activity and coerce them into political submission through the threat of termination. Sure, bosses where I live (a liberal costal city) are usually liberal. But in much of the country, they're not. 1. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-percentage-americans-support-gay-marriage-poll-finds-n799376 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-percentage-am...

5thbootloader 8y ago

I don't believe being against LGBT marriages necessarily implies that you are against all forms of LGBT relationships / lifestyles. Marriage has become regulated by the state due to its implications on all citizens. Just because someone doesn't agree with how the state legislates sexual relationships doesn't mean they should be antogonized. Their views can be beneficial to the argument regardless of which side they take. Simply shutting down conflicting political ideologies doesn't really lead to any rational discussion on the matter. To give an example, consider the current legal strife with gun control. Some people want the state to increase gun regulation and others don't. If each party simply supports their case by saying the other party is discriminating against their way of life, the discussion wouldn't lead to anything sensibly intelligent. People should have the ability to defend any argument they wish, so long as they remain civil about it. This is especially the case in matters which actually concern the people themselves. Their propositions may be wrong and detrimental to society but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to express their thoughts.

dagenix 8y ago
Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech. In 2008, he spoke, via a $1,000 public donation, of his opinion to support Prop 8. It wasn't just some random thought - he had a very specific outcome in mind that he wanted to see enacted that would impact _other_ people's lives. He got the consequence he wanted - Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was outlawed. In 2014, Mozilla employed exercised that very same right to speak against his fitness to be CEO. The consequence of that was that he was forced to resign. He doesn't get to pick and choose which consequences he'll allow. Once he speaks, other people get to respond, and thats what they did.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  > Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech This is actually not true. For example, it would have been illegal for Mozilla to fire Eich for his donation. This is because political activity is considered protected in California (like gender, race, etc.), so firing someone for making a political statement or for donating to a political cause is illegal. We will probably learn more about this defense as the Google/Damore case proceeds.