Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
I just don't do hypotheticals like this because I see no reasons to believe that they exist in any substantial number. This person would have taken the action to associate themselves with the BNP, and on that standard alone I wouldn't want them acting as a representative under my employ because of what would likely happen.
And, again, the comparison between the GOP and the BNP is not appropriate because there are many members of the GOP that eschew social conservativism. I doubt many of the willing members of the BNP are not white nationalists.
I see your bullshit hypothetical and raise you a bullshit generalization.
Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing?
In answer to the first: Possibly. Members have been arrested for possession of explosives before, and David Copeland detonated nailbombs in Brixton and Brck Lane, though the BNP insist that he was no longer a member of the party at the time of the attacks.
In answer to the second, there is a group called "Combat 18" which is allegedly a splinter group, and the BNP officially denies any connection to them. However they have acted as stewards at BNP rallies before. They've conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of the far-right cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.
Alright, so let us adapt this one to a situation in the U.S. the best way I can think of.
PETA has members who are violent, but not acting on PETA's behalf. There are a couple of groups (ALF, ELF) that are allegedly splinter groups, and PETA officially denies any connection to them. However, they have acted as stewards at PETA rallies before. They have conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of PETA's cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.
So that said, should I be allowed to fire a member of my staff who is a member of PETA? Keep in mind Iam a manager in a grocery store, and we sell meat and other animal products.
I don't think there's the same potential for harm when talking about militant animals rights protesters as there is when talking about militant racists. I'm pretty comfortable with the courts protecting someone's right to campaign for animal rights, and not extending that protection to campaigning for racist causes.
You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?
Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
Republican party is not similar to the BNP, it is absolutely impossible to compare them on any grounds.
Bullshit. The differences are quantitative, not qualitative. The Pubs are hardliners against illegal immigration, and have strong undercurrents of general anti-immigrant sentiment. I don't think the Pubs are anywhere near as bad, but that's not because of some fundamental, objective difference between the two. ANd, like I said, there are people who find the Pubs genuinely disgusting. What makes them wrong and us right? Hating women and gays (as some believe they do) is okay, but hating minorities isn't?
You need to stand back and look at this from others' perspectives. The BNP is retarded and offensive, but not in a legally distinguishable fashion.
Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.
arod, stop being a cock and actually explain whatever stupid thing you're trying to say.
You won't engage in a hypothetical because they don't exist in a "substantial number"
which means to say that you generalize groups of people without knowing their minds or their hearts.
I judge people base on their actions.
The court system judges people based on their actions.
As El Jeffe said, intent is used in determining motive.
arod_77 on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
I'm all for not hiring people that like Good Charlotte, by the way.
This group shouldn't be discriminated against unless their belief systems inferfere with their work. People who discriminate against them at work when the person has done nothing wrong should be looked at with a bit of disdain, as it's counterproductive and not much different than not working with someone who is Muslim or black or what have you.
Basically, bring them on board and let them work. They will either be a good employee or a bad one, judge them on that basis and that basis only.
Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Here we go, here's how it'll work. Members of the BNP are white nationalists. Period. If they are a willful member, they are white nationalists. I am stating that an employer should have the right to dismiss or refuse employment to people based on the fact that they are white nationalists. How many times do I have to restate that before you'll read it and comprehend it? I'm not talking about making white nationalism a crime, for fuck's sake.
I think you all are missing a very important fact here:
It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.
If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.
Jealous Deva on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker! - Chris Rock
Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Here we go, here's how it'll work. Members of the BNP are white nationalists. Period. If they are a willful member, they are white nationalists. I am stating that an employer should have the right to dismiss or refuse employment to people based on the fact that they are white nationalists. How many times do I have to restate that before you'll read it and comprehend it? I'm not talking about making white nationalism a crime, for fuck's sake.
Fine. And I am saying that being a white nationalism should not be grounds for dismissal provided your workplace behavior is indistinguishable from non-white nationalists.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And now I must go stop my son from eating my guitar.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?
Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?
Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.
I work with people from all over the damn country, and while I've discovered some of them are hopelessly racist and homophobic I've never seen one act out in such a manner.
Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.
I'd say they're broadly similar. Are you saying you think that someone should not be fired/denied a job because they are a racist, assuming that the evidence of their racism is their membership of the KKK?
If that's what you're arguing, I don't think this is a difference of opinion that can be resolved.
Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?
Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.
I work with people from all over the damn country, and while I've discovered some of them are hopelessly racist and homophobic I've never seen one act out in such a manner.
These people are racist to the extent of joining a white nationalist party. Belief predicates behavior. Phobias and hatred come in a lot of flavors and intensities, and these people seem to be of the more intent, less given-to-cognitive-dissonance variety.
Phobias and hatred come in a lot of flavors and intensities, and these people seem to be of the more intent, less given-to-cognitive-dissonance variety.
Of course, this is all supposition and/or anecdotal.
I think you all are missing a very important fact here:
It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.
If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.
In the UK (and Western Europe, I assume) you have to have a "reasonable" reason to fire someone. America is exceptional in having widespread at-will employment - which is absurd.
Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.
I'd say they're broadly similar. Are you saying you think that someone should not be fired/denied a job because they are a racist, assuming that the evidence of their racism is their membership of the KKK?
If that's what you're arguing, I don't think this is a difference of opinion that can be resolved.
Denied a job? Sure. If you have two candidates, and one is almost certainly a racist and the other, as far as you know, isn't, you'd be retarded to hire the former. All things equal, a non-racist is better than a racist. Not because he's simply a better person, but because he's more likely to be able to get along with other coworkers.
When the guy has already worked there for some amount of time and has given every indication that he can function without his racism becoming an issue, then you have zero reason to fire him other than simply not liking what he believes in. Now, you have every reason to not like what he believes in. He's an asshole. But unless you want to argue that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination, I don't think you have much of an argument.
And if you do think that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination even when such attitudes have no effect on work performance and wouldn't even be detectable absent outside information, where do you draw the line? Adultery is a total dick move. Should we fire people who cheat on their wives? How about fathers who weasel out of child support? People who flip off boxes of kittens?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think you all are missing a very important fact here:
It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.
If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.
In the UK (and Western Europe, I assume) you have to have a "reasonable" reason to fire someone. America is exceptional in having widespread at-will employment - which is absurd.
In the US, we do discriminate between being fired and being dismissed for other reasons for purposes of unemloyement benefits. If you're fired for cause, you can't collect unemployment. If you're let go for other reasons, you can.
The downside, of course, being that unscrupulous employers can try to manufacture reasons why you were "fired" rather than "laid off", which happened to my wife.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So, do you disagree with the Police and the Prison Service policies that membership of the BNP disqualifies candidates, and is grounds for immediate dismissal? Those policies stem from the fact that there is a clear and obvious conflict between what is expected of the role and the publicly expressed views of a hypothetical officer who is also a BNP member.
Basically I think that there are very few circumstances in which belonging to the BNP would not represent a conflict of interest as far as an employer is concerned. I don't think the same could be said of adulterers, deadbeat fathers, etc.
In line with what I said above, I think it would be legitimate grounds for disqualification, but not for dismissal. Though I can see a reasonable argument that extra consideration is required of police officers, and it's more difficult to supervise them directly, and so such a revelation would be grounds for an immediate review.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So, do you disagree with the Police and the Prison Service policies that membership of the BNP disqualifies candidates, and is grounds for immediate dismissal? Those policies stem from the fact that there is a clear and obvious conflict between what is expected of the role and the publicly expressed views of a hypothetical officer who is also a BNP member.
Basically I think that there are very few circumstances in which belonging to the BNP would not represent a conflict of interest as far as an employer is concerned. I don't think the same could be said of adulterers, deadbeat fathers, etc.
Most of whom would not be qualified for police service either, so that argument doesn't quite hold. As ElJeffe noted, police generally have fairly strict hiring standards. They also have appearance issues few other professions have to deal with.
Most of whom would not be qualified for police service either, so that argument doesn't quite hold. As ElJeffe noted, police generally have fairly strict hiring standards. They also have appearance issues few other professions have to deal with.
What are you basing this on? The policy came from a mass expulsion of closet BNP activist from the police force in about 2004, and the massive corruption problems that resulted.
I am probably going to get slammed for it, but this is one of the two main reasons why I have no support or sympathy for the anti-prop 8 crowd (nor do I support those who are pro-8). No matter how much I disagree with the proposition, the harassment of individuals because they voted a particular way or donated to a particular campaign is absolutely abhorrent behavior in a democratic system. You want to go after them for what they do or what they say, feel free, but they have a right to vote how they see fit, and I cannot condone any attempt to force someone to do otherwise.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I am probably going to get slammed for it, but this is one of the two main reasons why I have no support or sympathy for the anti-prop 8 crowd (nor do I support those who are pro-8). No matter how much I disagree with the proposition, the harassment of individuals because they voted a particular way or donated to a particular campaign is absolutely abhorrent behavior in a democratic system. You want to go after them for what they do or what they say, feel free, but they have a right to vote how they see fit, and I cannot condone any attempt to force someone to do otherwise.
Democratic systems don't apply when the rights of a minority are being stomped underfoot, otherwise we'd still have "WHITES ONLY" bathrooms. The constitution makes this pretty clear.
If my understanding of it is correct the government doesn't technically even have the authority to do it, I mean it isn't stopping them, but then again it generally doesn't. Not allowing gays the same rights and freedoms as couples as straight people is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.
I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I am probably going to get slammed for it, but this is one of the two main reasons why I have no support or sympathy for the anti-prop 8 crowd (nor do I support those who are pro-8). No matter how much I disagree with the proposition, the harassment of individuals because they voted a particular way or donated to a particular campaign is absolutely abhorrent behavior in a democratic system. You want to go after them for what they do or what they say, feel free, but they have a right to vote how they see fit, and I cannot condone any attempt to force someone to do otherwise.
Democratic systems don't apply when the rights of a minority are being stomped underfoot, otherwise we'd still have "WHITES ONLY" bathrooms. The constitution makes this pretty clear.
If my understanding of it is correct the government doesn't technically even have the authority to do it, I mean it isn't stopping them, but then again it generally doesn't. Not allowing gays the same rights and freedoms as couples as straight people is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.
Democratic systems still apply; they just cannot violate the Constitution. Like I said, if you want to challenge it in the courtrooms, like they did with "Separate but Equal", more power to you. Just don't demand people let you speak your piece while taking action against someone else for speaking theirs.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.
You won't associate yourself with a push for civil rights because....some people get angry about not having civil rights?
I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.
I think you're kind of missing something here.
Opposing prop 8 =/= being a dick. Like, by a long shot. In fact, opposing prop 8 pretty much just means you are for civil rights.
I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.
You won't associate yourself with a push for civil rights because....some people get angry about not having civil rights?
Not unless the groups behind that push can disassociate themselves from the harassment of opposing voters. As of yet, I have only seen support or silence from the anti-8 groups. Their position may have the moral high ground, but I see no difference between harrassing or boycotting people who voted for prop 8 than I do harassing or boycotting the people who voted against it ("but we are in the right" is not a valid argument, since I am sure both sides believe that).
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Posts
I see your bullshit hypothetical and raise you a bullshit generalization.
I don't think there's the same potential for harm when talking about militant animals rights protesters as there is when talking about militant racists. I'm pretty comfortable with the courts protecting someone's right to campaign for animal rights, and not extending that protection to campaigning for racist causes.
Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
You won't engage in a hypothetical because they don't exist in a "substantial number"
which means to say that you generalize groups of people without knowing their minds or their hearts.
I judge people base on their actions.
The court system judges people based on their actions.
As El Jeffe said, intent is used in determining motive.
This group shouldn't be discriminated against unless their belief systems inferfere with their work. People who discriminate against them at work when the person has done nothing wrong should be looked at with a bit of disdain, as it's counterproductive and not much different than not working with someone who is Muslim or black or what have you.
Basically, bring them on board and let them work. They will either be a good employee or a bad one, judge them on that basis and that basis only.
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
There is a good reason for this.
Here we go, here's how it'll work. Members of the BNP are white nationalists. Period. If they are a willful member, they are white nationalists. I am stating that an employer should have the right to dismiss or refuse employment to people based on the fact that they are white nationalists. How many times do I have to restate that before you'll read it and comprehend it? I'm not talking about making white nationalism a crime, for fuck's sake.
It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.
If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.
"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker! - Chris Rock
Sorry, it just reminded me of that quote.
I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.
Fine. And I am saying that being a white nationalism should not be grounds for dismissal provided your workplace behavior is indistinguishable from non-white nationalists.
Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?
Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.
I work with people from all over the damn country, and while I've discovered some of them are hopelessly racist and homophobic I've never seen one act out in such a manner.
If not: save your guitar! run! run faster!
I'd say they're broadly similar. Are you saying you think that someone should not be fired/denied a job because they are a racist, assuming that the evidence of their racism is their membership of the KKK?
If that's what you're arguing, I don't think this is a difference of opinion that can be resolved.
These people are racist to the extent of joining a white nationalist party. Belief predicates behavior. Phobias and hatred come in a lot of flavors and intensities, and these people seem to be of the more intent, less given-to-cognitive-dissonance variety.
So what's it like to operate completely free of context, reason, and rational judgment?
In the UK (and Western Europe, I assume) you have to have a "reasonable" reason to fire someone. America is exceptional in having widespread at-will employment - which is absurd.
Denied a job? Sure. If you have two candidates, and one is almost certainly a racist and the other, as far as you know, isn't, you'd be retarded to hire the former. All things equal, a non-racist is better than a racist. Not because he's simply a better person, but because he's more likely to be able to get along with other coworkers.
When the guy has already worked there for some amount of time and has given every indication that he can function without his racism becoming an issue, then you have zero reason to fire him other than simply not liking what he believes in. Now, you have every reason to not like what he believes in. He's an asshole. But unless you want to argue that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination, I don't think you have much of an argument.
And if you do think that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination even when such attitudes have no effect on work performance and wouldn't even be detectable absent outside information, where do you draw the line? Adultery is a total dick move. Should we fire people who cheat on their wives? How about fathers who weasel out of child support? People who flip off boxes of kittens?
In the US, we do discriminate between being fired and being dismissed for other reasons for purposes of unemloyement benefits. If you're fired for cause, you can't collect unemployment. If you're let go for other reasons, you can.
The downside, of course, being that unscrupulous employers can try to manufacture reasons why you were "fired" rather than "laid off", which happened to my wife.
Basically I think that there are very few circumstances in which belonging to the BNP would not represent a conflict of interest as far as an employer is concerned. I don't think the same could be said of adulterers, deadbeat fathers, etc.
Most of whom would not be qualified for police service either, so that argument doesn't quite hold. As ElJeffe noted, police generally have fairly strict hiring standards. They also have appearance issues few other professions have to deal with.
People have rioted over far less, any city that didn't instantly dismiss BNP officers would burn.
What are you basing this on? The policy came from a mass expulsion of closet BNP activist from the police force in about 2004, and the massive corruption problems that resulted.
- John Stuart Mill
Ah, misinterpreted, I thought you meant that most BNP members wouldn't qualify for Police service.
Democratic systems don't apply when the rights of a minority are being stomped underfoot, otherwise we'd still have "WHITES ONLY" bathrooms. The constitution makes this pretty clear.
If my understanding of it is correct the government doesn't technically even have the authority to do it, I mean it isn't stopping them, but then again it generally doesn't. Not allowing gays the same rights and freedoms as couples as straight people is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.
- John Stuart Mill
Democratic systems still apply; they just cannot violate the Constitution. Like I said, if you want to challenge it in the courtrooms, like they did with "Separate but Equal", more power to you. Just don't demand people let you speak your piece while taking action against someone else for speaking theirs.
- John Stuart Mill
You won't associate yourself with a push for civil rights because....some people get angry about not having civil rights?
Opposing prop 8 =/= being a dick. Like, by a long shot. In fact, opposing prop 8 pretty much just means you are for civil rights.
Not unless the groups behind that push can disassociate themselves from the harassment of opposing voters. As of yet, I have only seen support or silence from the anti-8 groups. Their position may have the moral high ground, but I see no difference between harrassing or boycotting people who voted for prop 8 than I do harassing or boycotting the people who voted against it ("but we are in the right" is not a valid argument, since I am sure both sides believe that).
- John Stuart Mill