- Joined
- Dec 30, 2013
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 1,112
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's now time to remove these protections. It's obscene that people can be fired for supporting marriage and not for the above. Let's have a free-fire zone - everyone can be fired for any damn reason.
Or President Obama who is opposed to Gay Marriage.
1.)It's now time to remove these protections.
2.) It's obscene that people can be fired for supporting marriage and not for the above.
3.) Let's have a free-fire zone - everyone can be fired for any damn reason.
even all those arent protected if theres a contract. FOr example religion. There have been cases of teachers or admin losing thier jobs at religious schools because they participated in a marriage that was fine with thier person religion but not the schools conduct clause.
But again a person knows this going in, its not a surprise and this is only for contracts.
Nope, never going to happen. Though I'm sure you dream of a utopia where you can fire the gays, the blacks, the women, and anyone else who was born into a body you don't agree with.
You'd be surprised at how quickly opinions can turn. Homosexuals are way overplaying their hand here. I get that being on a power trip is enervating, especially when mixed in a cocktail of moral righteousness. All employers need to fire is plausible deniability, they fire for one cause which can be documented but the reality is that the person was fired for voting in favor of homosexual "marriage."
Well, there is the concept of BFOQ Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications, if there was a casting for a movie about JFK and Samuel L Jackson got turned down for the part, (unless it was one really experimental film), he would not be able to say he was discriminated against. Most religious schools and such are not publicly traded companies, nor are they under the mandates of EO 11246.
But, when I train managers...I explain the law and why doing the right thing IS the right thing, regardless of federal and state laws.
You'd be surprised at how quickly opinions can turn. Homosexuals are way overplaying their hand here. I get that being on a power trip is enervating, especially when mixed in a cocktail of moral righteousness. All employers need to fire is plausible deniability, they fire for one cause which can be documented but the reality is that the person was fired for voting in favor of homosexual "marriage."
thats what my manager training was also and i think people not knowing that is where the issues start
It's now time to remove these protections. It's obscene that people can be fired for supporting marriage and not for the above. Let's have a free-fire zone - everyone can be fired for any damn reason.
If the government threw him in jail, that would be violating freedom of speech. He exercised his first amendment right to freedom of speech; Mozilla exercised theirs to freedom of association.
No one is on a "Power Trip". More and more companies are diligently aligning themselves with pro equality views and are not go to tolerate an image that contradicts that.
Well, I don't do the fuzzy diversity stuff, I do the legal side and the laws and the compliance issues and such.
But, if a company doesn't train, or make good faith efforts to outreach to all qualified applicants, then they are hurting themselves legally and financially.
I am so thankful to work for an enormous company that does the right thing, and when we are audited by the feds, we pass with flying colors.
No, Mozilla did not. Mozilla is in gross violation of laws of employment (might want to read up on them). His religious views (and he can claim this) were expressed and thus asking him to resign or threatening that he would be fired would be cause of a law suit and Mozilla ponying up some money.
Freedom of speech protects you from imprisonment not societal backlash.
Unless he was recompensated in a way he deemed satisfactory.
Societal backlash? You mean bloggers who eat cheetos in their parent's basement. Wonder if the societal backlash is gonna go as far as uninstalling Java Script cause that's what he developed and coded for Netscape, then help found Mozilla foundation and the chief architect of Mozilla... oh that's right.. they just didn't want him as CEO but they have no problem using Java or Mozilla.
And that might be the case.. but this claim a company can fire you willy nilly for your political or religious beliefs is hog wash as claimed by many so far.
Without action, no one knows your beliefs.
And that might be the case.. but this claim a company can fire you willy nilly for your political or religious beliefs is hog wash as claimed by many so far.
The last dregs of the workforce that thinks like he does have naturally left through attrition, another generation moves in. It is always that way, standing around and being an angry old throwback does nothing (except make that person look like an angry old crank)
Fire them all.
Societal backlash? You mean bloggers who eat cheetos in their parent's basement. Wonder if the societal backlash is gonna go as far as uninstalling Java Script cause that's what he developed and coded for Netscape, then help found Mozilla foundation and the chief architect of Mozilla... oh that's right.. they just didn't want him as CEO but they have no problem using Java or Mozilla.
Burn it down.
So just to understand your stance
Donating to a political campaign, organization, or entity is reasonable grounds for firing to you?
On a legal level, or on a personal "right and wrong" level?
I will say, I don't see a large issue legally here.
I do think this is a symptom of our continually crumbling society that's spiraling into a political black hole, where politics and causes infiltrate everything and becomes a pseudo war between each side with an "any means necessary attitude".
Be it chick-fil-a firing an employee because they volunteer for a pro-choice group or Starbucks firing someone for being an NRA member, it just sits somewhat off for me for companies to devolve to the point of utilizing people's livelihoods as a weapon in a political battle. This one is a bit more complicated due to the person being a CEO, but it still sits off with me as a concept.
At least Fiddy is forthright in his intent and description of what he wants to see happen.
For years I've described "hyperpartisan" as someone who contorts every situation into one that is a political "us good vs them bad" situation. Well, taking a political donation to a relatively mainstream cause (like it or not, opposing gay marriage is hardly tantamount to something like deporting all Muslims or some other extreme notion) of an individual and using it as a means of boycotting a company (potentially damaging a fair number of innocents) in order to cause someone to lose their job screams of a society that is bordering on becoming rather hyperpartisan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?