Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?
And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots...
>Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?
First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument?
There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc.
Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist.
There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc.
And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this).
Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work.
If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.
Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!
People who try and evangelize their religious beliefs for example can be bigots who think they're righteous. By the same token, atheists who evangelize their lack of beliefs can be bigots who think they're righteous. Either way, they're assholes that I don't want to work with.
There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for businesses who wanted to discriminate against mixed race couples, but in the end, that didn't really matter. There is no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself.
Sure, there's "no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself". But here the word bigotry is used twice in a weaselly way, making it a circular argument, that assumes what it should instead prove.
There's, however, a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - which was my point.
Except if nobody can have a position in sex/race/etc matters that goes against what an enlightened minority holds, except if they are bigots. Even if there are members of said sex, race, etc agree with the person -- and the "enlightened minority" is often a self-appointed hodgepodge of noise-making people.
My point is that there's a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - and that the latter does exist, and is often called out unfairly.
Now, one might believe that such a nuanced position is impossible to exist (without being bigotry).
That is, one might believe that nobody can have a stance on a matter concerning sex/race/etc that goes against what some enlightened minority holds, without being a bigot.
I try to point that this is wrong, via reduction ad absurdum.
And my first argument is: there are opinions called out as bigotry which some of the members of the group they reference also hold (e.g. saying something about group X which some X also believe, and being called a bigot about it).
If one doesn't believe that those opinions are nuanced, and not necessarily bigotry, then they should also accuse those members of group X as bigoted against themselves - which is absurd.
My second argument is: why would one believe that an accusation of bigotry can't be off? Especially since any random person/mob can make such accusations, for whatever purposes, and with whatever faulty reasoning -- and not only some ultimate arbiters of truth.
Not allowing someone to work would make them open their own business. They would hire like minded people. They would push some mainstream businesses into bankrupcy.
Sounds like a recipe for more racism. Like you are doubling down.
In Canada we would work with the person and tell people to leave your opinions at home. Magically opinions change quickly when you get to know one another. It is hard to hold on to such views when the reality is so different.
There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us.
My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.