6 ms·

Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Racial segregation was also legal via Jim Crow laws, and people still hold the political opinion it should

Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Racial segregation was also legal via Jim Crow laws, and people still hold the political opinion it should still be despite society changing and moving forward. It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions.

core-questions 7y ago
> Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? > It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous).
- bduerst 7y ago
  > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Because it is currently illegal in many places? >It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous). Which is a slippery slope fallacy. Political views are not and have not ever been protected classes.
- Ryckes 7y ago
  > > Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Are you suggesting that the only reason to legalize something is to get a legal stamp on it being moral? The main reason is to stop discrimination.
manfredo 7y ago
> It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is in California: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
- bduerst 7y ago
  Only in enacting company-wide policies to coerce political participation. Terminating employment for political actions in an at-will employment state like California is still legal. From your article: >On the contrary, political beliefs or views are not a specifically protected category under California's discrimination laws. Nothing in either of the two labor code provisions above directly addresses discrimination or retaliation on the basis of expressed political views. Nor does the First Amendment serve to provide any further guidance. With limited exceptions, the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of "freedom of speech" applies only to government action and not private employers/employees. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits political affiliation discrimination against federal employees only.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    How is policy of terminating employees who donate to certain ballot propositions not amount to coercing political participation? It's directly coercing employees against donating with the threat of losing their jobs.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      How do you know that it is Mozilla's company policy? That is the distinction based on the law that you cited. Firing someone for a reason in an at-will employment state does not suddenly make that reason part of the company policy.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Because they fired an employee specifically for their political donations. Your claim that firing employees for their political activity is ok as long as it's not a company policy and only one-off instances is not what law groups are saying. Here's one that addresses Eich's case specifically: https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-employee-political-activity/ https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-emp... > Mr. Eich’s situation is somewhat analogous to the one addressed in Nava v. Safeway, Inc., an unpublished decision of the California Court of Appeal. There, the court found that an employee had a viable wrongful termination claim because Safeway allegedly fired him for opposing gay marriage. Safeway claimed to have discharged Nava for taking down a sign he considered to be pro-gay. Nava claimed he was fired for his political beliefs. > Eich therefore likely had the right to contribute to Proposition 8 as a protected political activity.

core-questions 7y ago

> Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? > It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous).

bduerst 7y ago
> Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Because it is currently illegal in many places? >It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous). Which is a slippery slope fallacy. Political views are not and have not ever been protected classes.
Ryckes 7y ago
> > Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Are you suggesting that the only reason to legalize something is to get a legal stamp on it being moral? The main reason is to stop discrimination.

manfredo 7y ago

> It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is in California: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...

bduerst 7y ago
Only in enacting company-wide policies to coerce political participation. Terminating employment for political actions in an at-will employment state like California is still legal. From your article: >On the contrary, political beliefs or views are not a specifically protected category under California's discrimination laws. Nothing in either of the two labor code provisions above directly addresses discrimination or retaliation on the basis of expressed political views. Nor does the First Amendment serve to provide any further guidance. With limited exceptions, the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of "freedom of speech" applies only to government action and not private employers/employees. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits political affiliation discrimination against federal employees only.
- manfredo 7y ago
  How is policy of terminating employees who donate to certain ballot propositions not amount to coercing political participation? It's directly coercing employees against donating with the threat of losing their jobs.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    How do you know that it is Mozilla's company policy? That is the distinction based on the law that you cited. Firing someone for a reason in an at-will employment state does not suddenly make that reason part of the company policy.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Because they fired an employee specifically for their political donations. Your claim that firing employees for their political activity is ok as long as it's not a company policy and only one-off instances is not what law groups are saying. Here's one that addresses Eich's case specifically: https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-employee-political-activity/ https://shawlawgroup.com/2014/05/california-law-protects-emp... > Mr. Eich’s situation is somewhat analogous to the one addressed in Nava v. Safeway, Inc., an unpublished decision of the California Court of Appeal. There, the court found that an employee had a viable wrongful termination claim because Safeway allegedly fired him for opposing gay marriage. Safeway claimed to have discharged Nava for taking down a sign he considered to be pro-gay. Nava claimed he was fired for his political beliefs. > Eich therefore likely had the right to contribute to Proposition 8 as a protected political activity.