11 ms·
I'm going to ask you this again because you seem to have reading comprehension problems: What part of having absolutely nothing to do with the company or its b
by Dalewyn 3y ago
I'm going to ask you this again because you seem to have reading comprehension problems:
What part of having absolutely nothing to do with the company or its business do you not understand?
This is framing "violations of this code outside [spaces managed by the GCC project]" in a context more relatable to common men.
- madmoose 3y agoWhy do you feel the need to make up nonsense examples about moon-cheese to make the discussion relatable to "common men"? Do "common men" not understand sensible examples or do you not have sensible examples?
- foldr 3y agoI already responded to that question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36431254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36431254 I may have misunderstood what you meant by it, in which case it would be helpful if you could explain what you did mean.
- Dalewyn 3y agoNo, we are not in agreement. If an employee makes "transphobic comments in public outside of a work context" then upon what grounds does the employer have to terminate him for that? An employer should not be able to terminate an employee for something they do in their private time. Likewise, GCC should not be able to ban someone for doing something not related to GCC. That GCC's code of conduct allows for that is preposterous.
- foldr 3y ago>An employer should not be able to terminate an employee for something they do in their private time. My point was just that this is nothing new. It's always been the case that you could be fired for certain things that you did in your private time (e.g., historically, being gay). This is because what you do outside of work can affect the reputation of your employer. Within legal limits your employer has the right to freedom of association (just as you do).