You're right, he could have continued with his work had he simply avoided ever giving anyone the impression he held any beliefs which varied from THE ORTHODOXY.
But why should that have been required of him?
But why should that have been required of him?
Going against the grain has, and will always be a dangerous proposition and no amount of thought policing will change that.
Being gay is far more dangerous than being straight.
Being Muslim in a majority Christian or Hindu society is far more dangerous than being a adherent of the prevailing religion.
We could list examples all day, but it's a plainly obvious phenomenon. What I want to know is why so many people seem to act as if there's inherent moral superiority in being in the majority. There isn't.
(Also, cute bit of doublespeak characterizing a challenge to orthodoxy as "thought policing".)
It's not, and now he's dealing with the side effects of the choice he made.
I asked why his continued employment ought to be predicated on never giving the impression that he holds beliefs that people like you find offensive.
You say "It's not." But it obviously was. We can all see that it was, that's what TFA (as well as all the other press about Lucky in the last 12 months) is about: His perceived beliefs, how unacceptable they are to you, and whether or not he ought to be cast out as a consequence.
What you meant to say was "He should have known better than to give the impression that he believes things that I, and people like me, disapprove of."