4 ms·

By that logic should leadership fire those who support gun control? They are, after all, removing (what to some) seems a constitutional right. I'm not against

by zbobet2012 8y ago

By that logic should leadership fire those who support gun control? They are, after all, removing (what to some) seems a constitutional right. I'm not against gun control, but the argument here isn't a slippery slope one. This is very close to believing or not in gay rights.

duxup 8y ago
If it was gun control specifically targeting people based on race, sexuality, etc then yes. I think the idea that even legally we look at things differently when they're targeting a specific group is pretty well established and the difference in your example lies there.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  You seem to be proposing a standard based solely on discrimination. I doubt that is the standard you mean to propose. If someone say, ardently supported removing virtually all rights to free speech, in your mind does that fit into Prop 8 unacceptability or gun control acceptability?
  - duxup 8y ago
    I don't quite understand your question. Why does your free speech example have to fit ... some other situation?
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      Sorry, that was poorly worded. > If it was gun control specifically targeting people based on race, sexuality, etc then yes. I think the "specifically targeting" aspect is an odd choice of standard. You're saying if a CEO advocated for restricting gun rights for everyone, that would be acceptable. If a CEO advocated for restricting free speech for everyone...would that too be acceptable?
geggam 8y ago
Little note .... The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects natural rights inherent to man. The Constitution also limits the govt... not the people.
geofft 8y ago
I think that if you donate to pro-gun-control causes and a significant number of your employees own guns that you wish to ban ownership of and find it personally important to own those guns, you might be a poor choice of CEO. (Gun control isn't quite analogous here for a few reasons, one major one being that employers care a lot about who you marry, for insurance and family-leave reasons, and employers tend to care little about what guns you own. But if you can construct some situation where, I dunno, you interrogate employees about their guns or they want to open-carry at work, it's a little closer.) Remember that nobody cared about Eich's views when he was CTO. He could have remained CTO for years, and the question of his suitability as chief executive wouldn't have arisen.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > employers care a lot about who you marry, for insurance and family-leave reasons Employers don't care who you marry; they care if you marry. Although, those matters are related. Similarly, employers doesn't care if you or others own a gun; they care if you are alive and healthy. And those matters are related. [Insert debate here about the direction of that relationship.]
  - geofft 8y ago
    > Employers don't care who you marry; they care if you marry. Although, those matters are related. Sure. And if you are married to someone of the same gender, you reach the situation where the question of if you are married has different answers to different people. Or more precisely, your employer doesn't care if you are married, either; many states had processes for extending insurance benefits to either registered domestic partners or unregistered people that you just state an intention to live with long-term in a marriage-like way. Your employer cares that the social good promoted by insuring a family and not just the individual employee is a) actually being used when appropriate and b) not being used contrary to their wishes when not. If the employee's and employer's idea of social good and social ill are at odds, the employee should think twice about whether this employer is a good long-term (or even short-term) place for them. The fact that this question arises with a significant number of Mozilla employees made Mozilla and Eich a poor match.

duxup 8y ago

If it was gun control specifically targeting people based on race, sexuality, etc then yes. I think the idea that even legally we look at things differently when they're targeting a specific group is pretty well established and the difference in your example lies there.

paulddraper 8y ago
You seem to be proposing a standard based solely on discrimination. I doubt that is the standard you mean to propose. If someone say, ardently supported removing virtually all rights to free speech, in your mind does that fit into Prop 8 unacceptability or gun control acceptability?
- duxup 8y ago
  I don't quite understand your question. Why does your free speech example have to fit ... some other situation?
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Sorry, that was poorly worded. > If it was gun control specifically targeting people based on race, sexuality, etc then yes. I think the "specifically targeting" aspect is an odd choice of standard. You're saying if a CEO advocated for restricting gun rights for everyone, that would be acceptable. If a CEO advocated for restricting free speech for everyone...would that too be acceptable?

geggam 8y ago

Little note .... The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects natural rights inherent to man. The Constitution also limits the govt... not the people.

geofft 8y ago

I think that if you donate to pro-gun-control causes and a significant number of your employees own guns that you wish to ban ownership of and find it personally important to own those guns, you might be a poor choice of CEO. (Gun control isn't quite analogous here for a few reasons, one major one being that employers care a lot about who you marry, for insurance and family-leave reasons, and employers tend to care little about what guns you own. But if you can construct some situation where, I dunno, you interrogate employees about their guns or they want to open-carry at work, it's a little closer.) Remember that nobody cared about Eich's views when he was CTO. He could have remained CTO for years, and the question of his suitability as chief executive wouldn't have arisen.

paulddraper 8y ago
> employers care a lot about who you marry, for insurance and family-leave reasons Employers don't care who you marry; they care if you marry. Although, those matters are related. Similarly, employers doesn't care if you or others own a gun; they care if you are alive and healthy. And those matters are related. [Insert debate here about the direction of that relationship.]
- geofft 8y ago
  > Employers don't care who you marry; they care if you marry. Although, those matters are related. Sure. And if you are married to someone of the same gender, you reach the situation where the question of if you are married has different answers to different people. Or more precisely, your employer doesn't care if you are married, either; many states had processes for extending insurance benefits to either registered domestic partners or unregistered people that you just state an intention to live with long-term in a marriage-like way. Your employer cares that the social good promoted by insuring a family and not just the individual employee is a) actually being used when appropriate and b) not being used contrary to their wishes when not. If the employee's and employer's idea of social good and social ill are at odds, the employee should think twice about whether this employer is a good long-term (or even short-term) place for them. The fact that this question arises with a significant number of Mozilla employees made Mozilla and Eich a poor match.