Hacker News Reader

Comment by alextheparrot | Hacker News Reader

Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt.

The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.

View on HN

"Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? "

Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists.

"The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention."

This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence.

A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice.

Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish.

So hypocritical.

> This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

> Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.

First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)

At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination.

This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.

Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion.

Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.

I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.

>Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

>Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump?

>I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

> Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

Quitting is different from firing. There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer in the US. YMMV in the EU.

That said, should an employer be able to fire an employee for political views? Depends. IMO, if the business is separable from the politics, then no.

Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop. They do matter if it's a brand based around personality.

>There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer

Usually yes, but not necessarily. Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

>Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop.

I disagree. Even in a hobby shop, someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers (like death to Jews for example) is going to be a drag on morale and productivity. If I have an employee who is spewing antisemitism and I have Jewish employees who don't want to listen to that garbage at work, should I not be able to fire them? My Jewish employees should just have to deal with it or quit?

> Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

The employee should still have a right to quit, barring some bizarre contractual obligation. That an employee becomes absolutely indispensable is a problem for the owner to solve, not the employee.

> someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers

That's not about the politics, that's about harassment, which is a firing offense, usually. There are many situations that could go either way, so it's not a cut-and-dried rule.

I certainly would not say you could fire a Muslim for being Muslim, or a Jew for being a Jew or a Christian for being a Christian, if those particular attributes didn't have an effect on the work being done. Racists usually fall into that class where you don't know they're a racist until there's a problem you can and have to take action on.

> By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law.

Not for nothing, but as it shook out, Hobby Lobby (one of those companies that didn't want to pay for abortion through employee healthcare plans) won their suit, so while your argument may hold merit, it excludes quite a bit of the nuance tendered by reality.

> By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Hobby Lobby won. It's disgusting but companies now have the right to regulate their employees health options because of religious freedom.

> This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

If their actions potentially harm the business, then sure.

> A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish.

How is that in any way similar? PewDiePie is an entertainer associated with childrens programming. Anti-Semitic statements are actively harmful to Disney's (ironic given their history) reputation. So they fired him.

This is an entirely reasonable course of action.

Hobby Lobby sticking their nose into their employees health because they are a bunch of religious zealots is a very different situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com