AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
(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.
That buries a hell lot in "reasonable"! I think we both agree that beliefs that affect job performance should not qualify for protection. Why do you believe that dismissal for non-affecting actions stemming from religious belief is potentially reasonable?
Say I'm a Muslim. You, my employee, are a Christian. I might not give a damn what you believe as long you don't actually take action along it, but should I be able to fire you for going to church? Or for eating bacon?
In Iraq under Saddam they had free and democratic elections. You were free to vote for any candidate on the ballot sheet.
The manner in which they restricted ballot access invalidates the claim to free and democratic elections. But I'm sure you knew that, so why post it at all?
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
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.
If there are no laws against it, "reasonable" becomes "whatever the fuck the employer thinks."
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
Not even then. "Trying to destroy" would have to be...I don't know, stuff which is actually you directly harming the company.
It would be a very poor society if you weren't allowed to advocate for say, higher corporate taxes, stricter controls on corporations, better environmental standards for companies in the specific industry you work in etc.
Especially when you get down to specifics: there's every indication that excessive executive compensation is bad for companies in the long run, just not the individuals at the top. Yet those people are the ones who would get to remove any and all employees who held views vaguely deemed against this, since depending on ones interpretation that would be "destroying the company".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
To be fair, we've covered the topic pretty thoroughly.
Sane Consensus seems to be, no authoritarianism isn't a good idea and we wouldn't support it.
But also we're still talking about general rights restrictions and where people should have what power over others, which I think is as on topic as anything on this forum.
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
In Iraq under Saddam they had free and democratic elections. You were free to vote for any candidate on the ballot sheet.
The manner in which they restricted ballot access invalidates the claim to free and democratic elections. But I'm sure you knew that, so why post it at all?
Because I find the conversation on how it's definitely "freedom" to let employers fire employees for advocating for political views different from their own to be very very similar in concept, given the non-voluntary nature of things like "food" and "shelter".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
Not even then. "Trying to destroy" would have to be...I don't know, stuff which is actually you directly harming the company.
It would be a very poor society if you weren't allowed to advocate for say, higher corporate taxes, stricter controls on corporations, better environmental standards for companies in the specific industry you work in etc.
Especially when you get down to specifics: there's every indication that excessive executive compensation is bad for companies in the long run, just not the individuals at the top. Yet those people are the ones who would get to remove any and all employees who held views vaguely deemed against this, since depending on ones interpretation that would be "destroying the company".
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
Actually, so do you. The 1st Amendment explicitly determines the behavior of the government, but it is based on a broader principle - enunciated at length by the people who wrote the Constitution - that freedom from oppression by private interests is just as damaging to society. People forget that the British Army may have been the club, but the wielder was the West India Company.
Unfortunately for our society, the Founders solution to this was for everyone to become a yeoman farmer.
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
Actually, so do you. The 1st Amendment explicitly determines the behavior of the government, but it is based on a broader principle - enunciated at length by the people who wrote the Constitution - that freedom from oppression by private interests is just as damaging to society. People forget that the British Army may have been the club, but the wielder was the West India Company.
Unfortunately for our society, the Founders solution to this was for everyone to become a yeoman farmer.
they didn't write it into the constitution, though, so there was no federal authority against non-federal discrimination until the Civil War. As you noted, they didn't decide to regulate private oppression at a federal level. The notion of unfree persons is implictly there in the three-fifths thing.
I'm pretty sure that these type of situations are exactly why some might support authoritarianism. You don't have any of these tricky rights questions when the state and business can just do whatever the fuck they want to you because "Fuck you, that's why."
they didn't write it into the constitution, though, so there was no federal authority against non-federal discrimination until the Civil War. As you noted, they didn't decide to regulate private oppression at a federal level. The notion of unfree persons is implictly there in the three-fifths thing.
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
they didn't write it into the constitution, though, so there was no federal authority against non-federal discrimination until the Civil War. As you noted, they didn't decide to regulate private oppression at a federal level. The notion of unfree persons is implictly there in the three-fifths thing.
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
That buries a hell lot in "reasonable"! I think we both agree that beliefs that affect job performance should not qualify for protection. Why do you believe that dismissal for non-affecting actions stemming from religious belief is potentially reasonable?
Say I'm a Muslim. You, my employee, are a Christian. I might not give a damn what you believe as long you don't actually take action along it, but should I be able to fire you for going to church? Or for eating bacon?
If I was sitting on the Supreme Court, I would have probably put religious belief in the same category as political belief. That is, neither one would be a protected class and an employer should have the right to fire you for such beliefs if he finds them objectionable. However, the court obviously disagreed with me on this point, and I can see why they did. Historically and culturally, religion has been treated differently in this country than political beliefs.
Look at elections, for example. The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so. On the other hand, the GOP can't have a rule banning a member of a liberal church from running, even if the beliefs of that church are contrary to the GOP platform (granted, of course, that such a person would never actualy be nominated as a candidate, but the GOP still can't say "No Unitarians.")
Religion is kind of a hybrid between inate characteristic and voluntary behavior. At least, that's how we seem to treat it from a legal perpective in this country. There are almost no situations where you can fire someone based on race, but there are some where you can fire a person for their religious beliefs (or, at least, fire them based on the actions arising from those beliefs).
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
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.
Unless they're religious opinions, and only because SCOTUS doesn't always like being consistent. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) permits political affiliation as a protected class as much as other groups of conscious, but they'd rather ignore that because fuck off is why.
Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
This has been applied to political affiliations at the district level, which is hardly surprising because the act was created in the wake of the KKK terrorizing Republicans. SCOTUS disagrees with that interpretation, though, even though political affiliation is clearly a group of conscious rather than an innate characteristic, same as religion, and the free exercise of the populace in their right to the franchise without fear of retaliation is necessary for the proper workings of a democracy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
Wouldn't non-discrimination law apply to this though, outside of TEH CONSTITUTION? And I'd imagine those laws have their ideological routes in the bill of rights, but honestly now I'm just playing semantics.
The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so.
Well, not exactly. The Republican Party cannot legally prevent a nutjob from running for office as a Republican - he may not win the primary, but he can still advertise himself as being a member of the GOP. Remember the whole David Duke/Lyndon LaRouche thing?
The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so.
Well, not exactly. The Republican Party cannot legally prevent a nutjob from running for office as a Republican - he may not win the primary, but he can still advertise himself as being a member of the GOP. Remember the whole David Duke/Lyndon LaRouche thing?
Yeah, the drawback of having rights is it lets morons do dumb shit. The important thing would be for voters to put on their thinkin' caps and NOT vote the people running as sheep in other sheep's clothing into office. You can't really restrict this kind of thing without imposing draconian laws on normal people.
Look at elections, for example. The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so.
Er, what? As far as I know the principle reason is you can't be a member of both parties simultaneously (which is not inconsistent with, for example, working for two competing companies in the same area simultaneously).
Politicians can and do switch parties, even in the US.
On the other hand, the GOP can't have a rule banning a member of a liberal church from running, even if the beliefs of that church are contrary to the GOP platform (granted, of course, that such a person would never actualy be nominated as a candidate, but the GOP still can't say "No Unitarians.")
Just because the GOP is "conservative" today doesn't mean it won't be "liberal" tomorrow (whether by changing it's policies, or becoming the more left of a two party system or what not).
The GOP can and does reject candidates who's beliefs they don't find inline with the party all the time. You're advocating a rather absolutist view of where the political spectrum lies.
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption. It's meaning can even be interpreted differently without changing it.*
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
* Which is another reason I am not in love with the Constitution. Say what you want about those unlovely and bulky EU constitutions, at least they are specific, rational legal codes for a modern society and not broad philosophical arguments from the 18th century. The Constitution is like the Bible, in that it's broad and vague enough that you can create any number of mutually contradictory political religions from its text.
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
Wouldn't non-discrimination law apply to this though, outside of TEH CONSTITUTION? And I'd imagine those laws have their ideological routes in the bill of rights, but honestly now I'm just playing semantics.
Those laws have their roots in federal statutes enacted in the 60's and beyond under the auspices of the commerce clause. Congress (at the time) thought that it was good policy to limit an employer's ability to discriminate, but it was not Constitutionally mandated to do so. As of now, the protected classes are race, religion (unless the employer is a religious organization), veteran status (there was a fear that dirty hippies wouldn't hire vietnam vets), gender, or pregnancy. then there's age and the ADA, which prevent discrimination on those statuses unless it's necessary for the job.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption.
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
I'm pretty sure all those things you listed have been amended out of the Constitution, though. The basis of all law in the US is the Constitution, and laws that are found in conflict are overturned--usually.
In saying that, it's important to remember that the Constitution is a living document and that it must change and grow over time, which is why we have an amendment process in the first place. Like Lincoln said, it isn't a suicide pact.
they didn't write it into the constitution, though, so there was no federal authority against non-federal discrimination until the Civil War. As you noted, they didn't decide to regulate private oppression at a federal level. The notion of unfree persons is implictly there in the three-fifths thing.
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
Even the Constitution doesn't say it's the end-all, be-all of human rights. It is, however, the ultimate arbiter in discussions about the law in the USA.
I'm sure you have a more expansive view, yes? Except, if I can scoot on a limb here, for the parts where you think it's too expansive and you'd rather restrict rights.
That buries a hell lot in "reasonable"! I think we both agree that beliefs that affect job performance should not qualify for protection. Why do you believe that dismissal for non-affecting actions stemming from religious belief is potentially reasonable?
Say I'm a Muslim. You, my employee, are a Christian. I might not give a damn what you believe as long you don't actually take action along it, but should I be able to fire you for going to church? Or for eating bacon?
If I was sitting on the Supreme Court, I would have probably put religious belief in the same category as political belief. That is, neither one would be a protected class and an employer should have the right to fire you for such beliefs if he finds them objectionable. However, the court obviously disagreed with me on this point, and I can see why they did. Historically and culturally, religion has been treated differently in this country than political beliefs.
Look at elections, for example. The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so. On the other hand, the GOP can't have a rule banning a member of a liberal church from running, even if the beliefs of that church are contrary to the GOP platform (granted, of course, that such a person would never actualy be nominated as a candidate, but the GOP still can't say "No Unitarians.")
Religion is kind of a hybrid between inate characteristic and voluntary behavior. At least, that's how we seem to treat it from a legal perpective in this country. There are almost no situations where you can fire someone based on race, but there are some where you can fire a person for their religious beliefs (or, at least, fire them based on the actions arising from those beliefs).
This is why political appointees are excluded from the regulations covering hiring and firing policies. Given that political beliefs are directly relevant to the position, Members of Congress can and should be able to fire you for being a Democrat or Republican or even just left handed. Note, however, that this is exclusive to political appointees and not to civil service positions that are apolitical.
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption.
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
Those things you mentioned are no longer true because the Constitution was amended. Not sure what you mean by lower court opinions and English common law.
The question when talking about rights in the US is whether or not such right is Constitutionally protected. That's the prism through which all rights are judged.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
In the context of a conversation about rights in the US, it kind of is the end-all and be-all.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption.
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
I'm pretty sure all those things you listed have been amended out of the Constitution, though. The basis of all law in the US is the Constitution, and laws that are found in conflict are overturned--usually.
In saying that, it's important to remember that the Constitution is a living document and that it must change and grow over time, which is why we have an amendment process in the first place. Like Lincoln said, it isn't a suicide pact.
You definitely don't understand the Constitution.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Unless you're actively breaking the law there really isn't a good reason to be fired for your out of work actions.
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
How so?
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
Wouldn't non-discrimination law apply to this though, outside of TEH CONSTITUTION? And I'd imagine those laws have their ideological routes in the bill of rights, but honestly now I'm just playing semantics.
Those laws have their roots in federal statutes enacted in the 60's and beyond under the auspices of the commerce clause. Congress (at the time) thought that it was good policy to limit an employer's ability to discriminate, but it was not Constitutionally mandated to do so. As of now, the protected classes are race, religion (unless the employer is a religious organization), veteran status (there was a fear that dirty hippies wouldn't hire vietnam vets), gender, or pregnancy. then there's age and the ADA, which prevent discrimination on those statuses unless it's necessary for the job.
Hmm, maybe that's something we should look at then. I just always assumed free speech counted as one of those classes, at any rate it should be. Like, you aren't free to say whatever you want AT work or when you're out in an official capacity for your job, but when you're just Average Person, Man About Town your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what you do. And if that isn't where we are legally we should work on that.
Posts
The intrusion of work into our at homes lives is a really annoying side effect of modern technology. I can see the argument where if you're going around actively trying to destroy the company you're working for maybe--maybe--there's some cause for firing you, but bosses shouldn't be above the first amendment. Basically, if the government can't pop you in prison, your boss shouldn't be able to fire you.
That buries a hell lot in "reasonable"! I think we both agree that beliefs that affect job performance should not qualify for protection. Why do you believe that dismissal for non-affecting actions stemming from religious belief is potentially reasonable?
Say I'm a Muslim. You, my employee, are a Christian. I might not give a damn what you believe as long you don't actually take action along it, but should I be able to fire you for going to church? Or for eating bacon?
An off-topic one.
You misunderstand the Constitution rather thoroughly.
If there are no laws against it, "reasonable" becomes "whatever the fuck the employer thinks."
Not even then. "Trying to destroy" would have to be...I don't know, stuff which is actually you directly harming the company.
It would be a very poor society if you weren't allowed to advocate for say, higher corporate taxes, stricter controls on corporations, better environmental standards for companies in the specific industry you work in etc.
Especially when you get down to specifics: there's every indication that excessive executive compensation is bad for companies in the long run, just not the individuals at the top. Yet those people are the ones who would get to remove any and all employees who held views vaguely deemed against this, since depending on ones interpretation that would be "destroying the company".
Sane Consensus seems to be, no authoritarianism isn't a good idea and we wouldn't support it.
But also we're still talking about general rights restrictions and where people should have what power over others, which I think is as on topic as anything on this forum.
Quite so!
As to the topic, I would certainly not make the OP's trade, not at all.
How so?
Yeah. Equal protection is the 14th, people!
Because I find the conversation on how it's definitely "freedom" to let employers fire employees for advocating for political views different from their own to be very very similar in concept, given the non-voluntary nature of things like "food" and "shelter".
Hence why I said maybe--maybe--but not really.
I've bolded the actual conclusion I drew.
Actually, so do you. The 1st Amendment explicitly determines the behavior of the government, but it is based on a broader principle - enunciated at length by the people who wrote the Constitution - that freedom from oppression by private interests is just as damaging to society. People forget that the British Army may have been the club, but the wielder was the West India Company.
Unfortunately for our society, the Founders solution to this was for everyone to become a yeoman farmer.
"Congress shall make no law..." not "an employer shall not be a dick"
Eh, there's still the general idea that other people can't dick over your rights either. "Your rights end where another's begin" and all. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.
they didn't write it into the constitution, though, so there was no federal authority against non-federal discrimination until the Civil War. As you noted, they didn't decide to regulate private oppression at a federal level. The notion of unfree persons is implictly there in the three-fifths thing.
I'm pretty sure that these type of situations are exactly why some might support authoritarianism. You don't have any of these tricky rights questions when the state and business can just do whatever the fuck they want to you because "Fuck you, that's why."
Which is exactly why I don't use the Constitution as the end-all, be-all of human rights. That's more of a conservative thing.
y u no love freedom?
Look at elections, for example. The Republican Party can exclude Democrats from running for office as GOP candidates, and no one would argue that the law does, or should, prevent the GOP from doing so. On the other hand, the GOP can't have a rule banning a member of a liberal church from running, even if the beliefs of that church are contrary to the GOP platform (granted, of course, that such a person would never actualy be nominated as a candidate, but the GOP still can't say "No Unitarians.")
Religion is kind of a hybrid between inate characteristic and voluntary behavior. At least, that's how we seem to treat it from a legal perpective in this country. There are almost no situations where you can fire someone based on race, but there are some where you can fire a person for their religious beliefs (or, at least, fire them based on the actions arising from those beliefs).
Rigorous Scholarship
certainly on moral grounds. but not, importantly, on legal grounds as of yet.
This has been applied to political affiliations at the district level, which is hardly surprising because the act was created in the wake of the KKK terrorizing Republicans. SCOTUS disagrees with that interpretation, though, even though political affiliation is clearly a group of conscious rather than an innate characteristic, same as religion, and the free exercise of the populace in their right to the franchise without fear of retaliation is necessary for the proper workings of a democracy.
Wouldn't non-discrimination law apply to this though, outside of TEH CONSTITUTION? And I'd imagine those laws have their ideological routes in the bill of rights, but honestly now I'm just playing semantics.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, the drawback of having rights is it lets morons do dumb shit. The important thing would be for voters to put on their thinkin' caps and NOT vote the people running as sheep in other sheep's clothing into office. You can't really restrict this kind of thing without imposing draconian laws on normal people.
Politicians can and do switch parties, even in the US.
Just because the GOP is "conservative" today doesn't mean it won't be "liberal" tomorrow (whether by changing it's policies, or becoming the more left of a two party system or what not).
The GOP can and does reject candidates who's beliefs they don't find inline with the party all the time. You're advocating a rather absolutist view of where the political spectrum lies.
Which is why black people are still counted as 3/5ths of the vote, women and men without property can't vote and all other lower court opinions and English common law were burned after its adoption. It's meaning can even be interpreted differently without changing it.*
The Constitution is just one aspect of U.S. law, and it's one that can be changed. Restricting discussion of what can and cannot happen to "what's in the Constitution" is about as ahistorical as you can get.
* Which is another reason I am not in love with the Constitution. Say what you want about those unlovely and bulky EU constitutions, at least they are specific, rational legal codes for a modern society and not broad philosophical arguments from the 18th century. The Constitution is like the Bible, in that it's broad and vague enough that you can create any number of mutually contradictory political religions from its text.
Those laws have their roots in federal statutes enacted in the 60's and beyond under the auspices of the commerce clause. Congress (at the time) thought that it was good policy to limit an employer's ability to discriminate, but it was not Constitutionally mandated to do so. As of now, the protected classes are race, religion (unless the employer is a religious organization), veteran status (there was a fear that dirty hippies wouldn't hire vietnam vets), gender, or pregnancy. then there's age and the ADA, which prevent discrimination on those statuses unless it's necessary for the job.
I'm pretty sure all those things you listed have been amended out of the Constitution, though. The basis of all law in the US is the Constitution, and laws that are found in conflict are overturned--usually.
In saying that, it's important to remember that the Constitution is a living document and that it must change and grow over time, which is why we have an amendment process in the first place. Like Lincoln said, it isn't a suicide pact.
Even the Constitution doesn't say it's the end-all, be-all of human rights. It is, however, the ultimate arbiter in discussions about the law in the USA.
I'm sure you have a more expansive view, yes? Except, if I can scoot on a limb here, for the parts where you think it's too expansive and you'd rather restrict rights.
This is why political appointees are excluded from the regulations covering hiring and firing policies. Given that political beliefs are directly relevant to the position, Members of Congress can and should be able to fire you for being a Democrat or Republican or even just left handed. Note, however, that this is exclusive to political appointees and not to civil service positions that are apolitical.
The question when talking about rights in the US is whether or not such right is Constitutionally protected. That's the prism through which all rights are judged.
Rigorous Scholarship
You definitely don't understand the Constitution.
Hmm, maybe that's something we should look at then. I just always assumed free speech counted as one of those classes, at any rate it should be. Like, you aren't free to say whatever you want AT work or when you're out in an official capacity for your job, but when you're just Average Person, Man About Town your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what you do. And if that isn't where we are legally we should work on that.