Should people be fired from their jobs simply for attending the Unite The Right rally? (Israel, stats)
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.
Well in theory, in any right to work state a private company can fire someone. The question is, does the employer decide to make a public statement and say Mary was fired for being a Democrat or Joe a Republican.
Instead, many will just use an excuse like being late, not up to performance standards, etc. and the person is gone without recourse.
I think I was laid off from a job once for not going with the flow regarding outside interests. However I couldn't prove it, because I was just told it was not related to anything I did or said. Not that I would have had much recourse, because the ones they kept were minorities, so that would have been like fighting city hall as they say.
`
If they did, and faced a wrongful termination suite, I predict they would win. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
It would look pretty bad to admit that's why you fired someone, though - I think most companies, rightly, try to be as apolitical as possible, and this would be a pretty bold move by a company. I personally would never do that, even if I disagreed politically with an employee. The price paid in "bad press", boycott, image, etc. would probably not be worth it.
Again I brought this up in the companion thread but how do you decide what's racist and what's not? It's a dangerous slippery slope.
For example in my old stats job I had a number Israeli-American colleagues who felt that Israel should remain a Jewish majority state and should make sure Muslim immigration to Israel stayed low, and they weren't shy about saying this publicly. They were very nice people but they had views that the media would clearly call ethnocentric. This city had a lot of Middle Eastern immigration so there were a lot of people there who felt the Israelis were being very openly racist. So should the Israeli-Americans have been fired as racists? Who decides?
Last edited by Corascant; 08-14-2017 at 06:34 PM..
It's legal for your boss to do all of those things except treat white employees more poorly than black employees. That's prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Hardly anyone enforces EEO for whites. EEOC will not sue, lawyers won't take the case because white plaintiffs can't win no matter how good their case, judges don't rule in favor of whites.
CRA only protects whites on paper and in theory.
It's the state religion that only whites are racist and can't be victims.
Party affiliation is not a protected class. If an employer wants to fire people for that stuff go ahead. They also get to suffer the same potential consequence of their actions. Boycotts, loss of business, loss of good employees, all risks that an employer takes by firing someone for their beliefs. The thing is they are unlikely to face monetary consequences for firing racists. A good gamble for most businesses.
Do you think the idea of creating "protected classes" is a good idea?
Who should be in a "protected class" and in what capacity should it extend to out on the streets?
If I own a baking business I must make a cake for a gay couple. Yet if the gay couple were my employees I have the right to fire them for attending a Nazi rally.
It just doesn't seem logically or morally consistent.
Do you think the idea of creating "protected classes" is a good idea?
Who should be in a "protected class" and in what capacity should it extend to out on the streets?
If I own a baking business I must make a cake for a gay couple. Yet if the gay couple were my employees I have the right to fire them for attending a Nazi rally.
It just doesn't seem logically or morally consistent.
I don't think it's a good idea. It's not logical or morally consistent.
However, it's been done because before (and even now) they were created, people treated these now "protected" folks like ass.
You feel me?
None of this should be necessary. But it is because of how it all went down. And sadly still goes down.
I don't think it's a good idea. It's not logical or morally consistent.
However, it's been done because before (and even now) they were created, people treated these now "protected" folks like ass.
You feel me?
None of this should be necessary. But it is because of how it all went down. And sadly still goes down.
I mean...if we're talking "should" - of course it shouldn't be necessary. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need laws because we'd all get along happily and love each other. But, obviously, we don't.
I don't think it's a good idea. It's not logical or morally consistent.
However, it's been done because before (and even now) they were created, people treated these now "protected" folks like ass.
You feel me?
None of this should be necessary. But it is because of how it all went down. And sadly still goes down.
I understand some folks had good intentions in the concept of protected classes but IMO it only hides the folks who most of us despise.
I appreciate your honesty though. I rarely get answers to these questions.
I think the better way is to allow full discrimination and respect everyone's private property rights. That way those who want to run their business being jerks can be exposed and the rest of us can respond accordingly.
Again I brought this up in the companion thread but how do you decide what's racist and what's not? It's a dangerous slippery slope.
For example in my old stats job I had a number Israeli-American colleagues who felt that Israel should remain a Jewish minority state and should make sure Muslim immigration to Israel stayed low, and they weren't shy about saying this publicly. They were very nice people but they had views that the media would clearly call ethnocentric. This city had a lot of Middle Eastern immigration so there were a lot of people there who felt the Israelis were being very openly racist. So should the Israeli-Americans have been fired as racists? Who decides?
Good question. If America is not allowed to remain majority white, and neither is Europe because that's racist, then Israel can't remain Jewish, various Asian nations can't remain Asian, southern Africa can't remain black as that's racist too. Any other conclusion, that only white majority nations can't exist, would surely be racist.
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.
