[flagged]
> Do you think people should be banned from stores for what they wear in their homes?
> So you agree that it's okay for companies to terminate lgbt employees?
Yes and no. LGBT employees are protected under sex discrimination. I believe you are trying to frame the idea that freedom of association can defeat class based protections by targeting related attributes such as rainbow pride clothing worn by a person at home. Such attempts to circumvent class protections have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional because (1) they are not applied to all individuals (2) they are made in bad faith and (3) they have no use other than to target the protected class. I implore you to do research into the current stance of US Supreme Court rulings that define, limit, and explain class protections. My personal stance is very similar to that of the current SCOTUS stance and all of your questions are answered by their cases.
> Seems like people have no principles, just political agenda.
Unfortunately, the execution of one's principles are mistaken for the implementation of a political agenda.
So I implore those that read, ask yourself would you root for the removal of a Westboro Baptist Church member from their job and livelihood. If the answer is yes, then you have no argument against those that would do the same to LGTBQ or other protected classes.
It's not a matter of what is considered right or repugnant it is a matter of principal that the practice will inevitably ensnare less than guilty people, it is in effect modern day, digital Salem Witch trials (without the hanging and burning), and I honestly do see how people have been so filter bubbled to not see that.
Seems a bit weird that I would support the WBC not losing their jobs but not the former Citi employee right? Well, as a mature adult I recognize that there are limits to freedom of association. The limits are imperfect, but are still much better than the alternative of not having them. Even if I want the WBC to lose their jobs I know I shouldn't support that because they have the right to their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Just as how the limits OF freedom of association are imperfect (and force us to tolerate awful people) so too are the limits ON freedom of association imperfect (and will ensnare less than guilty people). We go through a trial every time we meet with or interact with a person. They judge us on our facial expression, the way we carry ourselves, the way we speak, and what we say. You could be the perfect candidate for a job but if they don't like your resting face your application can be thrown out.
Too many people have grown too comfortable venting on the internet expecting there will never be consequences for their posts. So comfortable in fact that if anyone dare say they don't want to work with you or interact with you there are accusations of persecution and analogies of persecutions past (or at least a slippery slope fallacy argument that it is coming).
To be clear on my position, I am not advocating for the government to step in here or even that he should be able to seek legal recourse. I am merely lamenting the fact that we as a society yield more to emotion and reaction rather than trying to instill principals in ourselves that are applied evenhandedly. I am not advocation that we regulate companies abilities to dissociate with employees, just noting that it's a shitty thing to be fired for your personal life and it was shitty when it was done to people of a different cloth in the past.
Too many people have grown too comfortable venting on the internet expecting there will never be consequences for their posts. So comfortable in fact that if anyone dare say they don't want to work with you or interact with you there are accusations of persecution and analogies of persecutions past (or at least a slippery slope fallacy argument that it is coming).
I don't disagree with you here, I think with the exception of a few pockets of the internet online discourse is leading a net loss of humanity. I think the general population feels free to just hang it all out there when they are not face to face and that is an issue. Before all of this people did tend to self censure a bit in front of polite company, if you will.
I differ a little on the not want to work with you part, and I think that is the sticking point. If they are not bringing it to work and the work discourse never leads to those subjects. I don't think it is the purview of another person to decide that they should not be employed because they don't feel like working with them.
Now I will give you that this is a nuanced conversation and there are a lot of issues such as if a person is actively advocation for violence, but in my view that is the point where a idea or belief that someone hold starts to move towards being the planning of crime. I hold this stance across the board, if ISIS calls for Jihad is no different to me that if a QAnon member calls for a race war or if Antifa/Proud Boys calls for rioting.