Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue of gay rights and gay marriage has been a hot topic recently and it sort of inspired this thread for me.
A couple of examples, one hypothetical and one real got me thinking about this.
Hypothetically, suppose a senior executive working for Chik-fil-A, whose founder has openly said he opposes gay marriage, contributed money to a pro-gay marriage political group and came out in favor of gay marriage on TV. As a result, Chik-fil-A fired this person for stating his views on his own time.
Another example, which actually happened: The CEO of Mozilla, which makes the web browser Firefox, was found out to have contributed to the anti-gay marriage initiative in California. He was promptly fired once this was revealed.
Both of these people would be having their free speech rights severely limited based on activity on their own time,if they wanted to maintain their livelihood. It may all be perfectly legal for the employer to fire them but doesn't that make free speech a secondary consideration to a company's arbitrary views and economic considerations in a country that supposedly values free speech?
Things are different between discussing the public lives of high-level executives and the private actions of generic office/blue collar workers. High level executives have great influence on the day-to-day operations of companies. When the hypothetical senior Chik-fil-A executive publicly contradicted and intentionally embarrassed his boss on TV, yeah, he gets fired. That's one of the costs of earning an executive salary; you must always present a public face that is representative of your executive status.
As for the CEO of Mozilla, that's even worse. A CEO is the public face of a company; that's pretty much the definition of the job. In his case he supposedly donated in private, but when you are a public figure nothing you do is private. And in the pro-tolerance world of high-tech the idea that a company is intolerant would be a death sentence.
Your right to free speech means that you can express political opinions and not be arrested for it. It does not shield you from the consequences of what happens elsewhere if you shoot your mouth off.
I mean, heck, I have a couple of clients who are fundamentalists, while I'm a gin-swilling Episcopalian. So I really don't feel the need to share my views on a host of topics with people who write me checks and put food on my table. What's more, I don't really feel it appropriate conversation in a business setting, whether across the board room table from a client or in conversation with my employer during work hours.
What's more, what if you work for a big healthcare company that stands to lose huge amounts of money from healthcare 'reform'? Should a company reward an employee who is actively working against its self-interest? And never forget that, especially as you get higher up the food chain, you represent your company whether you are at work or not. Nobody cares how Joe the shipping clerk votes as long as he gets his job done. But if Bob the VP of Sales is ticking off his key accounts because he's publicly campaigning for something clients find disagreeable, then that's kind of stupid of Bob. His actions have pretty much hurt the company's performance.
This applies to behavior as well. I don't care how sober and upright you are at work. As one example, if you spend your nights publicly cheating on your spouse, I would likely take my business elsewhere. For a person who indulges in one form of unethical behavior is very likely to indulge in another.
The old rule of etiquette holds fast: Religion and politics should be taboo subjects of conversation. Yet today there is a class of people who feel it isperfectly acceptable to spout off their political and religious views in just about every situation. They have no filter between brain and mouth. They flood Facebook with self-important rants that influence absolutely no one else. These people might be a mild social liability, but they potentially could be a huge professional one.
Free speech in the first amendment to the constitution generally protects individuals who express criticism of the government from being punished by the government.
However, recently there have been some high profile instances where people were fired or forced out of their jobs because they expressed some political views or contributed some money to a political cause, outside the job, not favored by their employers.
Do we really have free speech when you can be fired for saying something in your private life outside your job because your employer doesn't like it? Should people lose their livelihood over expressing their views on their own time?
Should the employer's rights to hire and fire supersede the employees rights to have their say on their own time?
I think there is free speech...you can SAY whatever you want. The key is this. People aren't forced to like it, agree with it or not hold it against you.
Contrary to a lot of misunderstandings, our actual Constitutional right is that government cannot silence you from speaking your views in public, nor can it make you say what you don't wish to say.
The Amendment says nothing about private employers, nor about public opinion. Nor, since this is a very commonly misunderstood point, does it have anything to do with online forums.
It is a treasured and valuable right, yes, one of those we've fought as a country to preserve, and even to extend to others, but in no way does it protect you from getting fired if you say something that your boss, or your audience, or your customers don't like. Nor should it.
People should be allowed to be against what is politically correct in their private lives without fear from repsirsal from ANYONE. Unfortunatley we now live in Amerikka, the Union of American Socialist Republics where the thought police will catch you and punish you if you don't regurgitate and tow the party line. Look at hobby Lobby. Even though the US supreme court ruled in their favor it's still not over as far as the Democrats and the "Gaystapo" are concerned. No, EVERYONE must tow the party line without exception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
