3 ms·
Let's take the opposite case. Let's say you were working for a bunch of people who believed wholeheartedly what Eich believes- that same-sex individuals don't h
by Aqueous 13y ago
Let's take the opposite case. Let's say you were working for a bunch of people who believed wholeheartedly what Eich believes- that same-sex individuals don't have a right to marry - but you expressed that you think they do have a right to marry. Do you think it would be acceptable for them to fire you based on this private belief simply because they disagreed with it? Take this question completely apart from the question of whether or not our belief is correct and theirs is wrong.
What is the limit to the consequences that can be meted out because of your free expression?
- akmiller 13y agoThat is not logically equivalent. One group is trying to deny another group rights...the other group just wants to be treated equally under the law. Eich, unfortunately, is on the wrong side of history here and he suffered a consequence because of it.
- Aqueous 13y agoRight - but neither of us have the final authority on what's wrong and what's right. In this situation both sides believe they are right, and then it becomes a matter of who has the power to inflict censure on someone else for their beliefs. In which case, if you were in such a situation, and therefore less powerful than your superiors who believe the opposite of you, wouldn't you want protection from being removed from your job and livelihood simply because you happened to believe something that went against the grain? If we mete out harsh punishment to people who don't toe the line people become afraid to speak and debate. If we are truly right then our idea will be proven right only through rational argument and rigorous debate. We should be doing everything possible to foster such an atmosphere, and that means sometimes tolerating beliefs that we don't agree with.