3 ms·

So to support policies that are later determined to be unconstitutional become fireable offenses? That means anyone that supports public school racial integrati

So to support policies that are later determined to be unconstitutional become fireable offenses? That means anyone that supports public school racial integration policies (as in, deliberately balancing out student populations to counteract de-facto segregation) should be fired. This was determined unconstitutional in 2007 [1]. Anyone that supports racial quotas in higher education also needs to be fired, because that was ruled illegal back in Bakke vs. Regents. Using constitutionality as a basis for whether certain political beliefs are fireable offenses is going to entail the firing of lots of liberals in addition to anti-gay marriage proponents. I don't think this justification was thought through. It's also worth mentioning that at the time of his firing, the Supreme Court had yet to rule that banning gay marriage was illegal. Eich was fired before the Supreme Court made Proposition 8 unconstitutional. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Reaction

CamperBob2 8y ago
In most jobs, there are plenty of ways to get fired even if you haven't broken any laws. This was just one of those ways, for one of those employees, at one of those jobs. At-will employment goes both ways.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Sure, it's legal. What we're discussing is what justification there is to make it socially acceptable to fire or tell people to resign based on political views.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    (Shrug) It's acceptable to me and to a bunch of other people, so that by definition makes it "socially acceptable." I reserve the right not to employ Nazi asshats, or to work for them. That's the upside to at-will employment... and the downside of being a Nazi asshat. In most states, political beliefs do not, and should not, qualify employees for membership in protected classes. Under California law the situation is murkier, but most conservatives like Eich would agree with that sentiment, I'd hope. But then, the definitions of traditional terms like "conservative" are becoming hard to keep up with nowadays.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      CA1101 and 1102 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...) are not murky. They date from the mid-20th century but have been used to defend people from all political angles (e.g., https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2272&context=californialawreview https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...).

CamperBob2 8y ago

In most jobs, there are plenty of ways to get fired even if you haven't broken any laws. This was just one of those ways, for one of those employees, at one of those jobs. At-will employment goes both ways.

manfredo 8y ago
Sure, it's legal. What we're discussing is what justification there is to make it socially acceptable to fire or tell people to resign based on political views.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  (Shrug) It's acceptable to me and to a bunch of other people, so that by definition makes it "socially acceptable." I reserve the right not to employ Nazi asshats, or to work for them. That's the upside to at-will employment... and the downside of being a Nazi asshat. In most states, political beliefs do not, and should not, qualify employees for membership in protected classes. Under California law the situation is murkier, but most conservatives like Eich would agree with that sentiment, I'd hope. But then, the definitions of traditional terms like "conservative" are becoming hard to keep up with nowadays.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    CA1101 and 1102 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...) are not murky. They date from the mid-20th century but have been used to defend people from all political angles (e.g., https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2272&context=californialawreview https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...).