Employers can't legally prevent you from saying whatever you want, absent some sort of non-disclosure agreement. Conversely, you can't force an employer to accept your opinions if he finds them unsatisfactory.
I'm not a free market libertarian, so free market arguments do not hold any water with me. And since the type of laws I'm talking about are common in other free market democracies, I'm not exactly being radical.
And this has nothing to do with "forcing" employers to accept anything. It has to do with my right as a citizen of a democracy and putatively free society in engaging in public debate about that society outside the workplace. That's what it means to be a citizen in a free society.
Again, hypocrites. Never, ever mention any government abridgement of your rights. It's pretty obvious that the only right you consider sacrosanct is the right to make money without government interference.
And Modern Man, I wasn't suggesting that you were accusing me of pedophilia. I suggested you were using the propagandist trick of finding the most extreme example to browbeat an opponent into submission. You don't bring up NAMBLA in this kind of discussions unless you want to force an opponent into the position of, directly or by omission, of supporting rights for NAMBLA.
There are protected classes such as union speech and complaints about improper work practices. And obviously government employers have to play by a different set of rules because of the 1st amendment limiting their course of actions. But yeah, why should a private employer be shackled to an employee that publically states their fundamental opposition to the employer's business? Or racist speech that disrupts the workplace.
Maybe because a democratic society cannot function if the business class can crackdown on political activity among its workers. That's especially true if the business leader can stifle political activity about wages and labor laws. You are simply passing the whip from the state to the private sector.
And this has nothing to do with "forcing" employers to accept anything. It has to do with my right as a citizen of a democracy and putatively free society in engaging in public debate about that society outside the workplace. That's what it means to be a citizen in a free society.
Of course you have that right. And your employer has no legal power to prevent you from exercising that right. So, what's your complaint?
Again, hypocrites. Never, ever mention any government abridgement of your rights. It's pretty obvious that the only right you consider sacrosanct is the right to make money without government interference.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So you would support removing restrictions from discrimination based on sex, age, religion and race in the workplace, then? After all, private parties are private parties.
Except for religion, none of those are voluntary conditions. You can't choose not to be black, but you can choose your opinions.
And the restrictions on firing someone due to their religion would not extend to someone expressing political viewpoints arising from that religion. You can't fire someone because they're Muslim. You can, however, fire them for participating in a protest where they demand that women be forced to wear a burka or that the laws be changed to make insulting Islam illegal.
No. Nor am I supporting NAMBLA or whatever blanket you want to throw over me. I'm saying that legal political activity done on your private time in a democracy should not lead to sanctions in the workplace any more than praying to Ganesha should get you fired if you are an orderly at a Catholic hospital.
Oh, please. Spare me the outrage about the NAMBLA hypothetical. I wasn't accusing you of being pro child rape and you know it.
Private employers do not own their workers. They should not be allowed to turn the contract of free labor into a muzzle against political opinions they do not like.
Employers can't legally prevent you from saying whatever you want, absent some sort of non-disclosure agreement. Conversely, you can't force an employer to accept your opinions if he finds them unsatisfactory.
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I think it is more than a little problematic to demand that people re-choose their political opinions as a condition of employment
for much the same reasons religion is a protected class too
Insofar as long-run unemployment rather than overemployment is a reality, then it is worth acknowledging that capital hires labour and not vice-versa and thus that employers wield considerable power over employees. "Go find another job" is, in fact, a penalty.
Theory aside. Political affiliation is in fact a protected class in a number of situations in the US, e.g., public-sector employment for non-policy positions, or eligibility for housing programs. Federally there is, to my knowledge, no protection of political affiliation in the private sector but there are states which do protect it.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
To answer the OP: in a word, No. The sacrifice is far too great, and the assumptions are far too tenuous and unreliable, to even consider it.
Briefly consider, OP: What if it were only Republicans in control, with everything else as you imagine it? Would you want to live under that sort of rule?
If not, you should oppose the idea altogether, or embrace it for what it truly is - fascism.
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
federal equal protection is actually under the 14th, not the 1st or the Commerce clause. The authority granted is fairly wide-ranging and there's really no point arguing with Congress Shall Have Power To Enforce, By Appropriate Legislation, The Provisions Of This Article.
notably it leaves considerable ambiguity as to what is actually considered a suspect class that may need equal protection under the 14th; nowhere in the text is either race or religion actually mentioned but that is the current SCOTUS interpretation. By SCOTUS precedent protected classes are race and religion and not political affiliation and so that is the federal situation.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
There has to be a line here, though... it's sort of crazy to suggest an employer should be barred from firing an employee who, let's say, thinks his company is evil and should be destroyed by the State, or that his industry should be nationalized, and so on. If your political beliefs lead you to argue that your employer is evil and your assigned duties are wrong and should not be done by anyone, you ought to be stopped from doing it by the people who need it done.
spool32 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why should someone be fired for thinking his industry should be nationalized?
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
There has to be a line here, though... it's sort of crazy to suggest an employer should be barred from firing an employee who, let's say, thinks his company is evil and should be destroyed by the State, or that his industry should be nationalized, and so on. If your political beliefs lead you to argue that your employer is evil and your assigned duties are wrong and should not be done by anyone, you ought to be stopped from doing it by the people who need it done.
Why? As long as he's doing his job, none of that is at all relevant to his employment.
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
It depends on the job he's doing, but if he's working in Marketing, that could be a pretty good indicator of poor job performance, again depending on the job and the industry.
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
I've already addressed it. Inate characteristics are different from voluntary decisions.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
And I do think there is validity to saying you can say that type of thing on the job. The place where it becomes egregious is when you also cannot say it off the job.
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
I've already addressed it. Inate characteristics are different from voluntary decisions.
So I can fire Muslims for being Muslim then. Good to know.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
There has to be a line here, though... it's sort of crazy to suggest an employer should be barred from firing an employee who, let's say, thinks his company is evil and should be destroyed by the State, or that his industry should be nationalized, and so on. If your political beliefs lead you to argue that your employer is evil and your assigned duties are wrong and should not be done by anyone, you ought to be stopped from doing it by the people who need it done.
(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.
[...]
"(8) Employees should be --,
"(A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and
"(B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.
This is the US federal government restricting federal hiring practices, so there is no constitutional dispute (as noted, SCOTUS denies the federal government power to regulate further on non-race-nor-religion grounds).
The usual mechanic, AFAIK, is to argue that if affiliation does not affect performance then said affiliation cannot be used on grounds for dismissal; in your hypothetical the (federal agency) employer could argue that performance would in fact be impaired.
It depends on the job he's doing, but if he's working in Marketing, that could be a pretty good indicator of poor job performance, again depending on the job and the industry.
If his job performance is poor, you'd be firing him for that, not for his beliefs.
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
I've already addressed it. Inate characteristics are different from voluntary decisions.
Religion.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
People do sometimes change their views after acquiring employment.
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
I've already addressed it. Inate characteristics are different from voluntary decisions.
So I can fire Muslims for being Muslim then. Good to know.
Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
False - I've been served here in Austin by vegetarians at a BBQ place. It was kind of a thing, to go down there and get some abuse from the dude as he plated your food.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
There has to be a line here, though... it's sort of crazy to suggest an employer should be barred from firing an employee who, let's say, thinks his company is evil and should be destroyed by the State, or that his industry should be nationalized, and so on. If your political beliefs lead you to argue that your employer is evil and your assigned duties are wrong and should not be done by anyone, you ought to be stopped from doing it by the people who need it done.
Why? As long as he's doing his job, none of that is at all relevant to his employment.
It depends on the job and the industry, but I could think of a few instances where's it's quite relevant. Microsoft salesman who thinks copyright is terrible, for example. Generally any sales or marketing job where you're supposed to be promoting your product but think the product is bad, immoral, or you advocate its destruction.
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
And I do think there is validity to saying you can say that type of thing on the job. The place where it becomes egregious is when you also cannot say it off the job.
Is that so? Would you say this guy should have his job back with back pay included?
And this has nothing to do with "forcing" employers to accept anything. It has to do with my right as a citizen of a democracy and putatively free society in engaging in public debate about that society outside the workplace. That's what it means to be a citizen in a free society.
Of course you have that right. And your employer has no legal power to prevent you from exercising that right. So, what's your complaint?
Explicitly, no. But you're making the argument that they have the implicit power to do so, by saying that if the employee exercises their right to speech in a manner unsatisfactory to the employer's, they will be punished by being terminated. Considering that when the government had tried this logic, they were slapped down by the courts on First Amendment grounds, there's a strong case to say that you are arguing for companies to have the right to control the rights of their employees.
Again, hypocrites. Never, ever mention any government abridgement of your rights. It's pretty obvious that the only right you consider sacrosanct is the right to make money without government interference.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
Protip: It's not just the government that can fuck with your freedom.
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
I think we already discussed how propaganda works. You find extreme cases and use them as cudgels to suppress freedoms in non-extreme cases. It's about making people squirm by, for example, making them associate by argument with anti-gay and antisemitic assholes.
It's Propaganda 101. Which is why you are having to pull articles from Town Hall to make your case.
Or to put it another way, I'm not in favor of burning the village to save it.
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
And I do think there is validity to saying you can say that type of thing on the job. The place where it becomes egregious is when you also cannot say it off the job.
Is that so? Would you say this guy should have his job back with back pay included?
IMO? he should, unless Cisco can make a case that his anti-gayness was affecting his performance somehow (unlikely)
there's no shortage of stories of people being fired for being Republican, partisanship anger is a big thing in the US - so why is this argument lining up on party lines here?
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
And I do think there is validity to saying you can say that type of thing on the job. The place where it becomes egregious is when you also cannot say it off the job.
Is that so? Would you say this guy should have his job back with back pay included?
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
I've already addressed it. Inate characteristics are different from voluntary decisions.
So I can fire Muslims for being Muslim then. Good to know.
Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
It's like you don't think about what you type.
Why is political belief different from religious belief?
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
Or his mirror, the Blue Eagle.
If you're referring to the Roosevelt poster, equating that with McCarthy is the sheerest bullshit.
I think we already discussed how propaganda works. You find extreme cases and use them as cudgels to suppress freedoms in non-extreme cases. It's about making people squirm by, for example, making them associate by argument with anti-gay and antisemitic assholes.
It's Propaganda 101. Which is why you are having to pull articles from Town Hall to make your case.
Or to put it another way, I'm not in favor of burning the village to save it.
The Turek fellow very likely held anti-gay opinions but his published works (as far as those articles go - I haven't read anything written by the guy) regarded gay marriage and how it was invalid. That is, he was not fired for anti-gay sentiment like that Shirvell weasel some months back, he was fired for anti-gay marriage sentiment.
You mean like a McDonald's manager who tells his employees everyday that meat is murder? I don't think that kind of thing ever happens, spool. Hippies don't apply for work at Halliburton, pro-lifers don't send resumes to Planned Parenthood.
False - I've been served here in Austin by vegetarians at a BBQ place. It was kind of a thing, to go down there and get some abuse from the dude as he plated your food.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
There has to be a line here, though... it's sort of crazy to suggest an employer should be barred from firing an employee who, let's say, thinks his company is evil and should be destroyed by the State, or that his industry should be nationalized, and so on. If your political beliefs lead you to argue that your employer is evil and your assigned duties are wrong and should not be done by anyone, you ought to be stopped from doing it by the people who need it done.
Why? As long as he's doing his job, none of that is at all relevant to his employment.
It depends on the job and the industry, but I could think of a few instances where's it's quite relevant. Microsoft salesman who thinks copyright is terrible, for example. Generally any sales or marketing job where you're supposed to be promoting your product but think the product is bad, immoral, or you advocate its destruction.
And again, if you can show it effects his job performance, you can fire him.
You can't fire someone because you think their beliefs might effect their job performance.
there's no shortage of stories of people being fired for being Republican, partisanship anger is a big thing in the US - so why is this argument lining up on party lines here?
Because the immediate source of the disagreement is about employers suppressing political activity about the regulation of business and wage/labor laws. While there a wide range of employers in the U.S. with diverse views, the majority of these cases are going to revolve around conservatives trying to prevent employees for advocating for liberal legislation.
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
Or his mirror, the Blue Eagle.
I'm not really seeing the equivalence of the Blue Eagle with the HCUA or McCarthyism, it seems much closer to advertising what optional federal classification your product lies in
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
I'm ambivalent on it. I think religion is more complicated than most voluntary behaviors. Certainly, it's been treated somewhat differently from other voluntary behaviors.
My position on both religion and political affiliation is fairly similar, though. No one should be fired for being a Muslim or Republican. However, if your religious or political beliefs lead you to take certain actions that a reasonable employer would find objectionable, then your beliefs, whether religious or political, should not protect you from being fired.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Employers being discriminatory based on your political leanings outside the workplace is a fucking excellent way to keep the workforce under their collective heels when at the same time they are shmoozing congresscritters for favorable legislation.
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
I'm ambivalent on it. I think religion is more complicated than most voluntary behaviors. Certainly, it's been treated somewhat differently from other voluntary behaviors.
My position on both religion and political affiliation is fairly similar, though. No one should be fired for being a Muslim or Republican. However, if your religious or political beliefs lead you to take certain actions that a reasonable employer would find objectionable, then your beliefs, whether religious or political, should not protect you from being fired.
So employers own their employees in your worldview. Good to know.
Posts
I'm not a free market libertarian, so free market arguments do not hold any water with me. And since the type of laws I'm talking about are common in other free market democracies, I'm not exactly being radical.
And this has nothing to do with "forcing" employers to accept anything. It has to do with my right as a citizen of a democracy and putatively free society in engaging in public debate about that society outside the workplace. That's what it means to be a citizen in a free society.
Again, hypocrites. Never, ever mention any government abridgement of your rights. It's pretty obvious that the only right you consider sacrosanct is the right to make money without government interference.
And Modern Man, I wasn't suggesting that you were accusing me of pedophilia. I suggested you were using the propagandist trick of finding the most extreme example to browbeat an opponent into submission. You don't bring up NAMBLA in this kind of discussions unless you want to force an opponent into the position of, directly or by omission, of supporting rights for NAMBLA.
Maybe because a democratic society cannot function if the business class can crackdown on political activity among its workers. That's especially true if the business leader can stifle political activity about wages and labor laws. You are simply passing the whip from the state to the private sector.
It's still a whip.
You're exhibiting a pretty major misunderstanding of how rights work in the US. Read the 1st Amendment again and tell me where it talks about limiting the actions of private parties.
Rigorous Scholarship
Just like you can't force an employer to accept your blackness if he finds that unsatisfactory.
for much the same reasons religion is a protected class too
Insofar as long-run unemployment rather than overemployment is a reality, then it is worth acknowledging that capital hires labour and not vice-versa and thus that employers wield considerable power over employees. "Go find another job" is, in fact, a penalty.
Theory aside. Political affiliation is in fact a protected class in a number of situations in the US, e.g., public-sector employment for non-policy positions, or eligibility for housing programs. Federally there is, to my knowledge, no protection of political affiliation in the private sector but there are states which do protect it.
It's not in the 1st Amendment. It's in the Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce.
That's why it can do things like making discrimination of race and religion illegal in the workplace. That's pretty established in our legal code. The fact that this doesn't extend to political activity, especially when such protections are common in the Western world, is not something that anyone that gives a shit about "freedom" would support.
Again, the fact that you do shows how limited and biased your understanding of freedom is. Complete freedom of business to control their workers' political activity off the job is a feature of fascism, not democracy.
And I know this is not now protected. I'm saying it should be, and there are clear signs that the OWS crowd understands this.
Briefly consider, OP: What if it were only Republicans in control, with everything else as you imagine it? Would you want to live under that sort of rule?
If not, you should oppose the idea altogether, or embrace it for what it truly is - fascism.
I do like how he's completely sidestepping that point. If he acknowledges it, it kind of throws a kink in his noble defense of employer's freedom to fire people they don't like.
notably it leaves considerable ambiguity as to what is actually considered a suspect class that may need equal protection under the 14th; nowhere in the text is either race or religion actually mentioned but that is the current SCOTUS interpretation. By SCOTUS precedent protected classes are race and religion and not political affiliation and so that is the federal situation.
There has to be a line here, though... it's sort of crazy to suggest an employer should be barred from firing an employee who, let's say, thinks his company is evil and should be destroyed by the State, or that his industry should be nationalized, and so on. If your political beliefs lead you to argue that your employer is evil and your assigned duties are wrong and should not be done by anyone, you ought to be stopped from doing it by the people who need it done.
Why? As long as he's doing his job, none of that is at all relevant to his employment.
Rigorous Scholarship
And I do think there is validity to saying you can say that type of thing on the job. The place where it becomes egregious is when you also cannot say it off the job.
So I can fire Muslims for being Muslim then. Good to know.
This is the US federal government restricting federal hiring practices, so there is no constitutional dispute (as noted, SCOTUS denies the federal government power to regulate further on non-race-nor-religion grounds).
The usual mechanic, AFAIK, is to argue that if affiliation does not affect performance then said affiliation cannot be used on grounds for dismissal; in your hypothetical the (federal agency) employer could argue that performance would in fact be impaired.
If his job performance is poor, you'd be firing him for that, not for his beliefs.
Religion.
Religion is not an innate characteristic. That's why people can convert.
People do sometimes change their views after acquiring employment.
Rigorous Scholarship
False - I've been served here in Austin by vegetarians at a BBQ place. It was kind of a thing, to go down there and get some abuse from the dude as he plated your food.
It depends on the job and the industry, but I could think of a few instances where's it's quite relevant. Microsoft salesman who thinks copyright is terrible, for example. Generally any sales or marketing job where you're supposed to be promoting your product but think the product is bad, immoral, or you advocate its destruction.
Is that so? Would you say this guy should have his job back with back pay included?
http://www.queerty.com/cisco-systems-fired-dr-turek-for-the-2010-anti-gay-articles-that-he-never-mentioned-fair-20110617/
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/06/16/the_cisco_kid
Explicitly, no. But you're making the argument that they have the implicit power to do so, by saying that if the employee exercises their right to speech in a manner unsatisfactory to the employer's, they will be punished by being terminated. Considering that when the government had tried this logic, they were slapped down by the courts on First Amendment grounds, there's a strong case to say that you are arguing for companies to have the right to control the rights of their employees.
Protip: It's not just the government that can fuck with your freedom.
(1) do you actually agree with the Supreme Court here, or are you objecting to religion as a protected class too?
(2) presuming you do agree: could you spell out why you think political affiliation shouldn't be a protected class while religion should be? It is hardly as if the US has no history of political affiliation being used as a discriminatory cudgel across society (*cough* McCarthy *cough*).
Or his mirror, the Blue Eagle.
I think we already discussed how propaganda works. You find extreme cases and use them as cudgels to suppress freedoms in non-extreme cases. It's about making people squirm by, for example, making them associate by argument with anti-gay and antisemitic assholes.
It's Propaganda 101. Which is why you are having to pull articles from Town Hall to make your case.
Or to put it another way, I'm not in favor of burning the village to save it.
IMO? he should, unless Cisco can make a case that his anti-gayness was affecting his performance somehow (unlikely)
there's no shortage of stories of people being fired for being Republican, partisanship anger is a big thing in the US - so why is this argument lining up on party lines here?
Yes.
This has been another Simple Answer To A Goosey Question.
It's like you don't think about what you type.
Why is political belief different from religious belief?
The Turek fellow very likely held anti-gay opinions but his published works (as far as those articles go - I haven't read anything written by the guy) regarded gay marriage and how it was invalid. That is, he was not fired for anti-gay sentiment like that Shirvell weasel some months back, he was fired for anti-gay marriage sentiment.
And again, if you can show it effects his job performance, you can fire him.
You can't fire someone because you think their beliefs might effect their job performance.
Because the immediate source of the disagreement is about employers suppressing political activity about the regulation of business and wage/labor laws. While there a wide range of employers in the U.S. with diverse views, the majority of these cases are going to revolve around conservatives trying to prevent employees for advocating for liberal legislation.
I'm not really seeing the equivalence of the Blue Eagle with the HCUA or McCarthyism, it seems much closer to advertising what optional federal classification your product lies in
but okay this is irrelevant
My position on both religion and political affiliation is fairly similar, though. No one should be fired for being a Muslim or Republican. However, if your religious or political beliefs lead you to take certain actions that a reasonable employer would find objectionable, then your beliefs, whether religious or political, should not protect you from being fired.
Rigorous Scholarship
So employers own their employees in your worldview. Good to know.