[flagged]
We were presumably talking about cases where people might be fired or excluded from a project for e.g. making transphobic comments in public outside of a work context. If you agree that this isn't a case where the actions have 'nothing to do with the company or its business' (because of reputational issues), then it seems that we're in agreement.
>If anything, it seems like nowadays people can be routinely fired when it's discovered that they are straight.
Utter nonsense – and you know it.
Now let's say you're a programmer and you like volunteering code to GCC. The project bans you because your beliefs expressed anywhere, including in the privacy of your own home, violate the nebulous code of conduct.
That's the kind of world we're slowly but surely moving towards.
Or maybe we’re slowly but surely moving to a world where the rights of women and minority groups are being slowly eroded after decades of progress, and before long me and all the other gays will be rounded up and sent to conversion camps in Florida run by a newly-nationalised Disney corporation.
I’m gonna guess you don’t find the line of argument in the preceding paragraph super convincing. I feel the same way about what you wrote.
What part of having absolutely nothing to do with the company or its business do you not understand?
This is framing "violations of this code outside [spaces managed by the GCC project]" in a context more relatable to common men.
If an employee makes "transphobic comments in public outside of a work context" then upon what grounds does the employer have to terminate him for that? An employer should not be able to terminate an employee for something they do in their private time.
Likewise, GCC should not be able to ban someone for doing something not related to GCC. That GCC's code of conduct allows for that is preposterous.
My point was just that this is nothing new. It's always been the case that you could be fired for certain things that you did in your private time (e.g., historically, being gay). This is because what you do outside of work can affect the reputation of your employer. Within legal limits your employer has the right to freedom of association (just as you do).
Do "common men" not understand sensible examples or do you not have sensible examples?
But I'm going to have to call slippery slope on the cheese moon thing. We're not moving towards a world where literally every thing you can possibly say will get you fired.
Maybe don't respond to someone who ignores core elements of the statements they are ostensibly replying to? If your posts are coherent and compelling, a respondent moving the goalpost or changing the conversation is obvious.
If you are being charitable, quoting a historical summary of the back-and-forth to clarify your own understanding and where it went wrong, would be helpful. Otherwise, this game of "nuh-uh" is not constructive.