These are some people with principles. The story doesn’t say what he was like to work for, in large part because he was an absentee owner.
I hope they have an easy time finding other jobs, that’s for sure.
Awaiting the White Supremacist apologists. Let’s go, people!
Well at least he didn’t donate to the Packers.
Confusing article. Did he run in Minnesota? I thought he was a perennial Louisiana loser. I can’t imagine MN is a more supportive audience.
Also De Roma? Sounds swarthy.
I’m pretty sure David Duke has supporters everywhere spread out. He has “appeal” and recognition to a certain fanbase that is beyond his local area. So this makes perfect sense. I’m sure most of his supporters are outside LA. California has the most hate groups in the U.S. Then Texas. I’m sure MN has a couple. When he ran for president I saw a couple “Vote for Duke. It’s The White Thing to Do” bumper stickers in Maryland.
Right, but the article strongly suggested he ran in Minnesota. I assume that’s not the case?
Click on the link in the article and you’ll discover “Duke embraced the Trump phenomenon and tried riding its coattails, announcing a run for U.S. Senate in his home state of Louisiana”
Well done them.
Those who argue that an employer shouldn’t be allowed to fire an employee after discovering they’re a nazi, what do you say now? Should these employees be forced to continue working for this asshole?
Dammit, I opened this thread because I wanted to ask that.
I suspect it will go unanswered.
I’m not one of those people who argued that, but it’s not a symmetrical situation. Employers have some legal restrictions about firing employees. Employees have no legal restrictions about quitting their jobs.
Duke finished 7th with just over 2% of the vote.
That was money well spent!
The link in the OP says no such thing.
Yes, but firing nazis is not a legal problem in the majority of the country, so that’s not the issue. The issue that is concerned in those threads is that it isn’t fair for the employer to discriminate against their employees based on their political activities, even if such discrimination is perfectly legal. The arguments made in those threads were more on the ethical considerations of whether personal issues should interfere with the work place, and whether we should enact laws separating the workplace from outside activities.
So, the question still stands, from an ethical standpoint, should these employees have stayed working for the white supremacist supporter? Them all quitting puts the owner in a worse position than an employee who is fired, as an employee can get another job, the employer still has expenses to pay on the business, even if it is not making any money. So, it reasons that if it is not fair to throw an employee out on their ass because of their political beliefs, then you shouldn’t throw your employer under the bus for his.
I get that laws would be more problematic (or impossible) to put into place, because, as far as I know, there are no laws about discrimination when it comes to accepting or maintaining employment. You can refuse to work somewhere because the owner is a minority or a woman or for any other reason you choose, no matter how protected a class it is. But, from an ethical standpoint, I do not see any difference between refusing to work for someone because they are black, and refusing to hire someone because of same, either way, you are allowing personal racial prejudices influence employment.
So, from an ethical standpoint, if you feel that it is wrong to fire someone for supporting white supremacy, is it wrong to refuse to work for someone for supporting white supremacism?
Fair question. Makes me wonder, all those Firefox employees? Brendan Eich should have told THEM to quit, if they didn’t like his political views.
I am sure that had he not quit, many of them would have.
I am not sure why you think he should have told them to quit.
So what? I’m the one on the bottom of this power structure. I can refuse to work for any reason I choose, and it will be completely ethical, moral and justified under any circumstances. I’m not “denying the employer of my services as an employee” or any such bullshit as that. If everybody quitting on him at once drives him out of business, so be it. He shouldn’t have been such an asshole. No sympathy and zero ethical violation.
My underline.
I agree mostly, however, would you consider it to be ethical, moral, or justified to refuse to work for your boss because you found out that he was gay? Legal, sure, but I don’t know about justified morally or ethically. If you replace the words I underlined with “gay”, do you stand by your statement?
So, finding out that your boss is a white supremacist is not all that different from finding out that your employee is a white supremacist. I would have no ethical issues with quitting working for someone like that, and not much more qualms over firing them either.
I am just saying that if it is unethical to fire an employee for things that happen outside of work, that don’t directly effect the workplace, then it should be unethical (though certainly not illegal) to refuse to work for a boss that does things outside of work that you may disapprove of.
Personally, I am on the side of it being ethical in either situation.
This argument only works if you think “gay” and “white supremacist” are ethically or morally equivalent things. Since I know you don’t think that, I’m kind of at a loss to figure out what you’re arguing here.
It works because silenus said "I can refuse to work for any reason I choose, and it will be completely ethical, moral and justified under any circumstances. ", and I was wondering if that applied to gay as well.
I was not the one making the equivalence, I was asking silenus if he was.