Rob Osborn Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 We are starting to really understand why morality and immorality cant live together.
mormonnewb Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I once worked in an office just a few desks away from a card-carrying communist. It never occurred to anyone (including me) that he should be fired for his anti-capitalist views, despite the fact that he was working in the private sector in a market economy.But I guess that just goes to show how much more censorious and overbearing the self-righteous Left is.Regards,Pahoran Were people boycotting your business for "harboring" a communist? If they did, I suspect that it would have "occurred" to someone to fire him. In the case of Mozilla, the company stood to lose MILLIONS if it kept on a CEO who many of its customers felt was a bigot. Do you think that this company should have been forced to endure a consumer boycott? Because that is exactly what the law in Utah will attempt to do? You have a right to your opinion, but other people have the right to reject your opinion (and you). Is that really so controversial? 1
mormonnewb Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 We are starting to really understand why morality and immorality cant live together. And when we come to a consensus on just what is "morality," we will happily abolish all of the "immorality." Until such time, morality and immorality might as well be on speaking terms. By the way, when we come to that consensus, I can guarantee that YOU won't like it. 2
Pahoran Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Were people boycotting your business for "harboring" a communist? If they did, I suspect that it would have "occurred" to someone to fire him. In the case of Mozilla, the company stood to lose MILLIONS if it kept on a CEO who many of its customers felt was a bigot. Do you think that this company should have been forced to endure a consumer boycott? Because that is exactly what the law in Utah will attempt to do? Well here's the thing: in a civil society, such as I am used to living in, reasonable people understand and accept that employers don't (because they can't) police their employees' private opinions or activities. Because they are none of the employers' business. An employee, whether CEO or janitor, who was fired for expressing politically unpopular opinions would have an absolutely iron-clad case for a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal. If she sends inflammatory letters to the editor on office stationery, or loses too many work hours because she's out picketing the Israeli embassy, then the employer has something to say to her. But as long as her activities and views are happening on her own time, and don't affect her job performance (and censorious PC lefties refusing to sit in the same room with her would not, to any reasonable person, reflect upon her performance) then the employer has nothing to say. And because the employer has nothing to say, there's no point trying to coerce the employer into firing her, so a boycott becomes a waste of time. That's how things work out here in the Free World. Obviously it's different over there in the People's Democratic Republic of Amerikastan. You have a right to your opinion, but other people have the right to reject your opinion (and you). Is that really so controversial? In any plausibly free society, people have a right to their opinions without risking their livelihoods over them. Is that really so controversial? Regards, Pahoran 2
mormonnewb Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Well here's the thing: in a civil society, such as I am used to living in, reasonable people understand and accept that employers don't (because they can't) police their employees' private opinions or activities. Because they are none of the employers' business.An employee, whether CEO or janitor, who was fired for expressing politically unpopular opinions would have an absolutely iron-clad case for a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.If she sends inflammatory letters to the editor on office stationery, or loses too many work hours because she's out picketing the Israeli embassy, then the employer has something to say to her. But as long as her activities and views are happening on her own time, and don't affect her job performance (and censorious PC lefties refusing to sit in the same room with her would not, to any reasonable person, reflect upon her performance) then the employer has nothing to say.And because the employer has nothing to say, there's no point trying to coerce the employer into firing her, so a boycott becomes a waste of time.That's how things work out here in the Free World. Obviously it's different over there in the People's Democratic Republic of Amerikastan. In any plausibly free society, people have a right to their opinions without risking their livelihoods over them. Is that really so controversial?Regards,PahoranThe supreme irony is that you fail to see that I am the one defending the free market here. It is my position that an employer should be free to dismiss a worker for expressing "repugnant" views. In contrast, you support a governmental regulation that would FORCE an employer to keep such a worker. Who is the one living in Amerikastan?And just to be clear, the freedom of speech protects a citizen from the GOVERNMENT taking action against him/her. It does not mean that people can be COMPELLED to associate with you regardless of what you say. Edited March 10, 2015 by mormonnewb 3
mormonnewb Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) DUPLICATE. Edited March 10, 2015 by mormonnewb
Pahoran Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 The supreme irony is that you fail to see that I am the one defending the free market here. It is my position that an employer should be free to dismiss a worker for expressing "repugnant" views. In contrast, you support a governmental regulation that would FORCE an employer to keep such a worker. Who is the one living in Amerikastan? So you think an employer ought to be "free" to censor the views of his employees. I might have thought, with your constant, if not obsessive, awareness of your black heritage, that you might have resisted the urge to make everyone tug the forelock to the massa. In any event, here in the Free World, the obligation employees have to their employers does not extend into their private lives. That's what it really comes down to. Regards,Pahoran 1
mormonnewb Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 So you think an employer ought to be "free" to censor the views of his employees. I might have thought, with your constant, if not obsessive, awareness of your black heritage, that you might have resisted the urge to make everyone tug the forelock to the massa. In any event, here in the Free World, the obligation employees have to their employers does not extend into their private lives. That's what it really comes down to. Regards,PahoranIf your private activities cause people to threaten to boycott your employer's business, then your employer has every right to fire/censor you. What sense of entitlement causes you to think that your employer should be the one to pay the cost of YOUR free speech?What it comes down to is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You must bear the consequences of your actions. 2
Pahoran Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 If your private activities cause people to threaten to boycott your employer's business, then your employer has every right to fire/censor you. What sense of entitlement causes you to think that your employer should be the one to pay the cost of YOUR free speech? Like I said: since the employer can't fire someone for holding views the censorious Left sees as "repugnant," there's simply no point to a boycott, is there?No point to a boycott ==> nobody wastes their energy trying to drum one up ==> the employer doesn't have to "pay" for anything but to compensate the employee for conscientious discharge of his/her duties. What it comes down to is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You must bear the consequences of your actions.But this is what you just don't grasp, Tovarich: Free speech entails no "consequences."That's why it's free.Regards,Pahoran 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 But this is what you just don't grasp, Tovarich: Free speech entails no "consequences."That's why it's free.Regards,PahoranI lol'd. Though I shouldn't because there is a fundamental disconnect here that has serious consequences that newb doesn't get. And he claims to be the champion for the free market. That is the real joke here. 2
Senator Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Come on Newb!! Your going to lose this debate if you don't start firing back with some pejorative labels of your own..... 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Come on Newb!! Your going to lose this debate if you don't start firing back with some pejorative labels of your own.....He's already lost. Pejoratives won't help.
tonie Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 He's already lost. Pejoratives won't help.The Church regards housing and employment as "basic human rights". The proposed bill is about housing and employment.What comprise is could conceivably be found on the part if the anti-gay movement in this bill? I do not see a give-give going on with this bill.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I don't think so.You're entitled to your opinion. Wouldn't it be great to have legislation in place ensuring that you couldn't be fired from your job for expressing it?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) The Church regards housing and employment as "basic human rights". The proposed bill is about housing and employment.What comprise is could conceivably be found on the part if the anti-gay movement in this bill?I do not see a give-give going on with this bill.The very public, highly visible backing of the proposed legislation by the Church is quite a bit in and of itself. The Church didn't have to do that. Edited to add: The Church is not part of any "anti-gay movement." Therefore, you could not accurately have been referring to the Church in your remark. My mistake. Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Senator Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 You're entitled to your opinion. Wouldn't it be great to have legislation in place ensuring that you couldn't be fired from your job for expressing it? Not necessarily. I don't know why I should expect to be able to say anything I please without any repercussions.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Not necessarily. I don't know why I should expect to be able to say anything I please without any repercussions.Even those having to do with your employment? Take that up with tonie, who a moment ago identified "housing and employment" as "basic human rights" and said that's what "the proposed bill is about." Or does that only apply to a protected class? Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Even those having to do with your employment? Yes. There is already legislation that prohibits certain speech and behavior in the workplace; as I believe it should be.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Yes. There is already legislation that prohibits certain speech and behavior in the workplace; as I believe it should be.You mean like sexual harassment? Bullying? That sort of thing? That's not what the proposed legislation would protect. As I understand it, it pertains to expression of political opinion, religious belief and the like. You think your employer ought to be able to fire you for doing that?
Senator Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 As I understand it, it pertains to expression of political opinion, religious belief and the like. You think your employer ought to be able to fire you for doing that? Yes
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) YesReally? I find that bizarre -- and a bit frightening that someone would thus favor the suppression of freedom of speech. But fortunately for you, I could not pressure your employer into legally firing you over such a mere expression of opinion on a political matter -- at least not under the proposed legislation. (Not that I would do such a thing, but in theory no one else would be able to do so either.) Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Calm Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I think there should be a difference between workers who contract for a set of hours and those who are seen as representatives for the company and compensated for being that public face. I don't see why employers should be able to dictate through threat of dismissal what the person does outside the job parameters.If a person shouldn't be fired for public expression of sexual choice, why should they be fired for public expression of political or religious choice? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I think there should be a difference between workers who contract for a set of hours and those who are seen as representatives for the company and compensated for being that public face. I don't see why employers should be able to dictate through threat of dismissal what the person does outside the job parameters. And, of course, the proposed bill would exempt the employer from permitting speech or behavior that interfered with the business purpose of the company, as in your example of one who is employed to be the public face of the company. f a person shouldn't be fired for public expression of sexual choice, why should they be fired for public expression of political or religious choice? Why indeed! That's why I say it appears they are seeking privileges for a protected class, not preservation of rights to which everyone is entitled. Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
tonie Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 The very public, highly visible backing of the proposed legislation by the Church is quite a bit in and of itself. The Church didn't have to do that.Edited to add:The Church is not part of any "anti-gay movement." Therefore, you could not accurately have been referring to the Church in your remark.My mistake.I was referring to the anti-gay movement. Regardless, a bill that completely exempts religion, is not a compromise on the part of religion.
Recommended Posts