• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

American freedom fighter and hero fights for his right to oppose the Fourth Reich

Wrymouth3

Wrymouth3

Emperor
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,069
Location
Fort Lauderale, Florida
"I want to be a bigot openly and use religion as an excuse to do it"

Religion is a good excuse not to wear a certain type of hat or eat a certain type of food.. Well, okay, it really isn't, but it's a far better use for religion than the above.
 
Thing is, he is still free to write about it. This is just like that duck guy situation..
 
Well of course he is free to write about it. The thing is, should he have been fired for it? It was on his personal blog, not some the official blog of his employer. It doesn't seem right to fire someone for their personal beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't interfere with the business of their employer.

Using the religion defense seems....dumb.
 
warpus said:
He is free to write about it, but just not for that publication anymore it seems.
Click to expand...

Actually, he is still free to write about it and submit it to that publication as a letter to the editor (Oh, the irony) just as that publication is free to discard it.

@Benito: Yes, they should be free to fire him for it. He chose to publicize his views, which ties those views to that company so long as he was in their employ. I am absolutely okay with this.
 
BenitoChavez said:
Well of course he is free to write about it. The thing is, should he have been fired for it? It was on his personal blog, not some the official blog of his employer. It doesn't seem right to fire someone for their personal beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't interfere with the business of their employer.

Using the religion defense seems....dumb.
Click to expand...

In the case of a newspaper editor it is difficult to say that his personal beliefs would not interfere with the business of the paper. Editors and owners of newspapers have to iron out differences of opinion in order to set editorial policy all the time. If they can't work out their differences the editor resigns or is dismissed.

I don't see this guy as being able to put aside his dearly held and "God directed" views to compromise with his employer...who probably and rightfully would rather not have any references to 'the Gaystapo' under their editorial policies. So maintaining editorial policy with him in that position becomes a task requiring constant supervision by ownership.

I don't believe people should be fired for religious views, but I also believe that an orthodox jew shouldn't take a job at McDonalds and then 'suddenly' recognize they put bacon on my cheeseburger and he doesn't want to participate. That was part of the job when he took the job*. If someone has views that preclude them from doing certain jobs they should just buck up and get a different job. This former newspaper editor just needs to go find another line of work.





*not intended as an offense against the beliefs of orthodox jews, who I think lose enough from their lives by missing out on bacon and don't need me picking on them
 
The Supreme Court has given a thumbs up to discrimination based on religion, so this guy is out of luck. Go write for the Hobby Lobby company newsletter pal.
 
JollyRoger said:
The Supreme Court has given a thumbs up to discrimination based on religion, so this guy is out of luck. Go write for the Hobby Lobby company newsletter pal.
Click to expand...

There are times I see something and say 'how I wish I had said that'.

This is one of them.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
I don't believe people should be fired for religious views, but I also believe that an orthodox jew shouldn't take a job at McDonalds and then 'suddenly' recognize they put bacon on my cheeseburger and he doesn't want to participate.
Click to expand...

I love the idea that it would be the bacon and not the cheese that offends the observant Jew.
 
10463921_10202252693220497_1580634874421757871_n.jpg
 
Well, he's muhrican, he has freedom of speech. And freedom to speak against the Gaystapo, I suppose.

But honestly, he and his ilk are a problem of society that will solve itself in a generation, simply by dying of old age.

People don't really realize how much power the internet has to promote progressive thinking as opposed to dogmatic thinking.
 
Boy, I'm really glad the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can have interests and values other than profit, and can't be coerced to act against those barring state interest, a few weeks ago.

If Civfanatics got what they want, he'd actually have a case!
 
classical_hero said:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Often attributed to Voltaire, but origin not well known. Certainly no truer words have been spoken.
Click to expand...
Nobody is stopping him from being able to rant about the Gaystapo or whatever else his deranged mind is coming up with. The newspaper simply decided that given his stated beliefs he would be unable to carry out the editorial policy of the paper given that it conflicted with his stated beliefs.
In short, a newspaper fired a guy because they believed it was incapable of carrying out his job.
 
Speaking your mind means losing your job, that basically means if you want to keep your job, you have to hold the standard line, meaning that you are not free to speak about certain issues.
 
No, he is totally free to do so and does not risk imprisonment because of it. Actions have consequences, however, and if his public actions are going to affect those around them, then those around him should be free to disassociate themselves.

Do you think that the head of the NEA (National Education Association) should get to say on their own personal blog that they think pre-teen girls are sexy and get to keep their job? The are not breaking any law by doing so, they are just stating their views on something, but you can bet your bottom dollar they'd be canned for it, and rightfully so.
 
Because, for some reasons unknown, we're using a Constitution which was made while we still were stabbing the British.

These days, we are the British.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom