To clarify - say a schoolteacher writes expressing their strongly held personal racist beliefs (without specific reference to how this relates to their teaching role) would you consider that a reason?
If the teacher says "Race X is dumb and can not learn" then yes remove them as they are an educator and racist views on the ability to learn would impact their ability to teach
if the teacher says "We should have strong border controls" which is now viewed by the public as racist then no
Thus, when you write "There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job" it is interpreted by me (and it seems many others) to be a much wider context than my narrowly focused statement
So you think that in this case employers and other employees should be denied the right to free association so that a racist can keep their job?
> In the febrile McCarthyite atmosphere fermented by the moralising left, remarks that could be construed as sexist mean that Brand is a sexist, which also meant that he is a misogynist. Cut and dried, finished, condemned.
It is a rather distressing habit to think in this way.
Show me where I said employers should be denied any rights?
The point I made is that inciting harassment of people's children at school is an entirely different thing to making them lose their job (and we've just agreed that there are some things people can write which they should lose their jobs for), and it's a mistake to lump those things together as the same "unconscionable barbarism" as she does here.
and
> if the teacher says "Race X is dumb and can not learn" then yes remove them as they are an educator
seem to be in conflict.
And they pretty much stopped there because everyone agrees that it was not comparable to a political belief and deserving of the same protections.
No, unless the bias actually shows up in their marking or treatment of students. People can say they believe all kinds of things but their professed beliefs and their actions don't always align.
A job entails certain duties, and "duties" are actions you must perform between certain hours, it does not govern how you should think or what you should believe. Or do you not believe that scientists can be religious too?
The problem here is that you do not believe that people can separate their beliefs from their duties, and you want to presumptively and proactively punish people without evidence that their beliefs have compromised their duties.
> People can say they believe all kinds of things but their professed beliefs and their actions don't always align.
Us software developers often end up doing what we don't believe should be done, in the spirit of getting things done within deadlines!