Hacker News Reader

> If I were your employer, I would definitely consider firing you because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and political violence.

But where does that end? You could use that against line of reasoning against literally any political topic.

You could just as easily say, "I would definitely consider firing you for being pro-choice, because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of murder".

or "I would consider firing you for being Christian, because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of discrimination, judgement, and torture."

Being Christian does not imply being tolerant of tolerant of discrimination, judgement, and torture. Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for.

As someone who leans heavily Democrat, I disagree. There are many Trump "supporters" who just extremely dislike/disagree with Clinton. That doesn't mean they back "all he stands for" much as I don't personally back the separate email server, HRC's coziness with Wall Street, etc.

We have a two party system. Support doesn't indicate 100% alignment.

>Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for.

No it doesn't, since when does supporting a particular political candidate mean that you think they are the epitome of perfection? It simply means that you believe said candidate to be marginally better on the issues you care about, than the next most likely candidate to win the election.

Surprisingly, it does not mean that; it means that you prefer some of Trump's policies (whatever those might be) to Hillary's corresponding policies.

>Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for

It means at least you put other things at higher priority than discrimination, torture, and promotion of violence and hatred and you are willing to at least ignore those.

In my eyes, that's simply not acceptable. We aren't talking about economical policies or debate on tax laws here, we are talking about basic human decency.

But being the secretary of state of the administration that assassinates US citizens without trial (including a 16 year old US citizen) and laughing on television about a world leader being killed and sodomized with knives by a mob on television is acceptable?

We are all complicit in this madness. You should fire everyone and then fire yourself.

Clinton did not order nor promote sodomizing a "world leader" (a brutal dictator, you made it sound like he's an elected leader from a democracy or something).

The killing of the U.S. national without trial was done due to such individual's action. There was no condemnation of violence toward a large group of people due to racism or sexism.

The world is obviously not perfect, but you can't use that as the basis of argument for "everything and everyone is just as bad as each other and things cannot possibly be worse".

No, she just helped destabilize the country until he was killed and sodomized. And then laughed about it, on television. Surely this was the administrations intention all along. Of course they didn't expect him to be sodomized but as long as he died one way or another I really doubt they cared. Of course, now Libya is still embroiled in civil war.

The point is that there are legitimate reasons to support Trump over Hillary that don't involve someone being a racist, sexist, bigot. The world definitely isn't perfect and we have two (major) candidates to choose from that make a lot of reasonable people on both 'sides' existentially concerned about the future of the republic.

I agree with your concerns about Trump. I just think Hillary is even scarier, especially because a lot of the type of people who would protest and politically mobilize against the actions I think she might take support her.

How is that any different than Clinton? She's talked about 'droning' people who oppose her viewpoints.

Please show me verified proof where she publicly threatened violence or jail time or like you claimed, drone strike against her political opponents (they definitely oppose her viewpoints).

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

> t means at least you put other things at higher priority than discrimination, torture, and promotion of violence and hatred and you are willing to at least ignore those.

Oh please... You're not being intellectually honest.

>But where does that end? You could use that against line of reasoning against literally any political topic.

So according to you all points of view and agenda should be tolerated just because the line is blurry?

In practice the line has to be drawn somewhere. No other politicians I can think of in a Western Democracy actively and explicitly encourages hatred, racism, sexism and violence in the same way Donald Trump does.

Let me be clear, I do believe in everyone's right to first amendment. They should be able to exercise free speech without fear of government prosecution (as long as it doesn't violate Federal laws governing Hate Speeches).

But I also believe in any private party's right to completely disassociate and distance themselves from Mr.Trump and his supporters, including their employers.

You are wrong about the law.

"But I also believe in any private party's right to completely disassociate and distance themselves from Mr.Trump and his supporters, including their employers."

This is illegal. Highly illegal.

Nope, not illegal at all.

It's completely ok to fire someone over outrageous or offensive remarks or hate speech.

Billy Bush was literally just fired by NBC over the Trump tape. You can definitely be fired for openly promoting racism, sexism or violence, those are not protected by US labor laws.

First Amendment does not protect against private party actions either, they only ensure that the government cannot prosecute you.

Oregon http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.665

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mcducknbaos0ah55x204uumg))/...

California

The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. For further information, contact Holland & Knight lawyers Linda

Illinois

An employer is not permitted to maintain a record of employees’ off-the-job political activities. 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. §40/9. For further information, contact Holland & Knight attorney

Louisiana

State law expressly prohibits any employer policy which forbids or prevents employees from "engaging or participating in politics" or from becoming a candidate, and any policy that "controls or directs [employees'] political activities." Employers also are prohibited from threatening to discharge employees who "support or become affiliated with any particular political fashion or organization, or participate in political activities of any nature or character." Significantly, Louisiana law permits imprisonment for violations!

Massachusetts

Employers are prohibited from attempting to influence an employee to give or withhold an employee's vote or an employee's political contribution. Employers are also prohibited from taking an adverse employment action against an employee — or rewarding an employee through higher wages or favorable employment terms — because of the giving or withholding of a vote or a political contribution

New Jersey

State law prohibits employers from attempting to influence employees to vote or to not vote or to vote/not vote for any particular candidate, and from requiring workers to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or communicating about the employer's opinions about political matters (including party affiliations).

And more!!!

https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Hey-Take-It-Outside-Polit...

> California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises."

So no one can be fired for saying something on facebook? Go California, I hope everyone catches up.

>limiting workers' participation in politics;

Yes, you can't be fired for voting Republican. But you can absolutely be fired for inciting hatred and violence against minority or women.

Being a Trump support goes beyond a mere political stance.

Here's what our current VP said in 1979, in a secret conversation with a Soviet official:

> Unofficially, [Senator Joseph] Biden and [Senator Richard] Lugar said that, in the end of the day, they were not so much concerned with having a problem of this or that citizen solved as with showing to the American public that they do care for “human rights.” . . . In other words, the collocutors directly admitted that what is happening is a kind of a show, that they absolutely do not care for the fate of most so-called dissidents.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/hidden-history-evil-13281.h...

So a vote for Obama-Biden was a vote for someone who secretly collaborated with the KGB in repressing dissidents. Sounds like cause for firing to me. Granted, the KGB no longer exists. But do the Nazis? The KKK?

The good news: in the future, robots will do all the jobs. We can all fire each other for our historical and political sins, and spend our time worrying about the KGB, the Nazis and the KKK, while our Roombas peel grapes for us.

Mere name change does not make something to disappear. You are very dangerously mistaken to think that one of the listed has ceased to exists.

Under this rationale if the head of your company is anti-choice and finds out you are voting for Hillary Clinton he/she could say I am firing you because you tolerate the genocide of children.

Plenty of things to knock Trump on but any comparison to Hitler is nonsensical.

>Plenty of things to knock Trump on but any comparison to Hitler is nonsensical.

True.

But then, after eight years of listening to my Republican friends compare Obama to Hitler and young black voters to the new Hitler Youth, maybe the jackboot deserves to be on the other foot for a while.

I mean, unless Hillary wins, then she gets to be Hitler.

If you fired someone for supporting the Republican Party, you would go to jail.

Political discrimination has been proven illegal by the courts, and you would be absolutely wrong in the situation that you gave.

Congratulations you're an intolerant person.

The way I see it, if someone wants to be tolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever, well, ok, they're a spineless milquetoast maybe, but ok. I can deal.

The trump supporters I know don't just tolerate his racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever, they endorse and agree with it. That's where I draw the line in terms of things I am OK with.

I don't want to live in a world with racism, sexism, whatever. I will gladly apply whatever pressure I have (mostly social, right now, maybe some day economic, but you know) to discourage people with those views from promoting them, in the hopes that eventually those views fade away.

(I don't even view that as a particularly brave act, by the way, to stand up and say "racism does not belong in the world and you need to stop"--I kinda view it as the bare minimum of what it means to be a decent person.)