Of course. But the topic of the thread isn’t about what the law currently is. If that were the case, it’d be easy enough to point to the actual laws. I read the topic to be more along the lines of, are the laws we currently have exactly right, and if not, how should they be changed. Pointing out what the law currently is doesn’t further that purpose. Yes, there is no federal protection for political ideology. In many states, that is also true. The question is whether that’s a desirable state of affairs. Stating that we only protect immutable qualities, or historically discriminated against people/actions only informs of the history, but does not speak to whether we have it exactly right, and/or what changes ought be made.
You say in Ohio you could terminate for being gay. That would not be allowed in CA. Are Ohio’s laws about that better or worse than CA? CA also protects political activity, should it? You may not care because you are in Ohio, but those questions are the point of the thread, IMO.
And talking about things on the job is not the only way people can find out otherwise private information. Maybe I see you signing a petition at the local grocery store, see you parked outside a business that I don’t like, etc. Lots of information that isn’t work related can become known so really the question is what actions should be prohibited.
You are correct, we are debating what changes should be made. I am just stating my opinion that I don’t think that political affiliation should be changed to a rpotected class, and I am outlaying my argument for that. Part of it is opinion, and is hard to form a factual argument, but as far as that goes, the factual argument that determine whther a class should be protected against disrimination should be to look at the outcomes that happen if they are disriminated against. If you discriminate against wha tpeople are, that’s causing problems. If you discriminate against some of he things that people do, that does not need to lead to those same sorts of civil strife issues that you have when you have entire segments of the population treated as second class citizens by pretty much everyone.
Ohio’s laws are different than California’s. Better? I wouldn’t say that, just different. You would probably like the gun laws here quite a bit more than the ones that you have over there.
I would support making sexual orientation a protected class, locally, state wide, or federally, as I feel that being discriminated against based on who you love causes more societal problems than allowing it. And either way, I would not fire someone for their sexual orientation, legal or not.
I do not support making political ideology a protected class, as I do not thing that being discriminate based on what you publically advocate for will cause problems in overall society. And either way, I am going to find a way to terminate someone who brings scandal to my establishment that costs me business or employees, even if it is not technically legal to do so.
If I see an employee signing a petition to exterminate or otherwise remove the undesirable races from our country, I’ll have issues working with that person in the future. If I see an employee signing a petition to change the zoning to put me out of business, I’m going to have the same problem. It is less a matter of how I feel about a person, than how that person’s extracurriculars are going to affect my business.
Unless you can come up with a way to make it illegal to not patronize a business because of the public politics of the employees, then the business needs to be able to control the public expressions of politics of their employees. It doesn’t take internet mobs to destroy your business. Like I said earlier, I have 2 jewish employees who would probably quit if I had a nazi on the payroll. Losing them would be a massive blow to my business, one that I would have difficulty getting past. I have a few minority employees as well, and they probably are not going to get on too well with someone who feels they are inferior due to their genetic heritage. If I can’t terminate the nazi that I accidently hired (he didn’t tell me he was a nazi at the interview, and I only found out because he was marching in a white power rally [which we have locally from time to time, so no need for national media or internet mobs, he could be recognized in person by a client or employee.]), then I am going to quickly have no employees except nazis I can’t fire, but that’s okay, because I won’t have any clients, as they are not going to let nazis work on their dogs (even the german shepherds).
I am not sure that parking outside a business I don’t like should be a protected class. If my employee is parked in front of one of my competitors, I may take exception to that. If he is parked outside of a crack house, I may not want the liability of him working with live animals. If I see his car outside of Trump campaign headquarters, then I am not sure that I need to ignore that. If I see his car parked in front of a house festooned with confederate flags and swastikas, with bananas hanging from nooses in the trees, I am certainly not going to ignore that.
So, we really have two options, as I see it, we either make political ideologies protected classes, but only officially acceptable political ideologies, and only acceptable expressions of same, which means the govt is now in the business of regulating political parties (as it is in regulating religions), or we do not make it a protected class, and allow employers to run their businesses in socially responsible ways.
Don’t agree with the OP premise at all. Although I don’t disagree the firings go too far in some cases; that’s because people are mush-brained assholes and it’s taking the easy way out. You have a remedy, you can sue to get your job back.
There’s too much yapping as it is. Anything that makes people think twice about the consequences of their actions is good.
Leaving it as the gov’t can’t lock you up for it is fine with me.
First amendment doesn’t say you’re required to say every stupid thing that pops into your head.
Boom. Social media gives you a loaded gun at your temple at all times. And the mob is the surveillance camera.
Beliefs are not actions. Beliefs are not words in public. Beliefs are not marching carrying a swastika flag.
This thread is about protections of employees due to protected classes, and whether we should extend those protected classes to political ideologies. Analogies to currently protected classes, and exceptions when those classes do not get you protection are relevant.
In private? No.
In semi private group of a church congregation? No.
Chanting “God hates fags” at a soldiers funeral? Yes.
Vox seems to be complaining here that workplaces are like dictatorships. This isn’t their first article covering what they consider to be wrongful treatment of workers IN the workplace.
But if we think it’s okay to advocate for protection of certain worker behaviors IN the workplace, how can we not advocate even more for protection outside of it?
Amazon apparently bans “casual conversation” in the workplace. Not sure how they would enforce that, but it seems to me that such a rule is entirely consistent labor law and their rights as employers. Anyone care to disagree?