> To me this becoming the norm is chilling and echo's in my mind as 1984 becoming a work of non-fiction.
I think the real chilling thing here is your attack against freedom of association while ironically complaining that the world is becoming more like 1984. Sure, like all rights freedom of association has its limits, especially around protected classes and unions in the business world. But should the government really step in and force me to continue to employ a holocaust denier just because he makes me a lot of money? Should the government really stop me from kicking out a dude dressed in a KKK outfit from my store?
I am not advocating for the government to step in, if anything I believe their is overregulation of certain business relationships (not all). I was making the personal observation that I do not like the practice and that the pendulum always swings back the other way.
The answers to all of your questions here are highly dependent on the context of the question. Is the view expressed by the party of a protected class tied to their class and does it infringe on another persons rights? The answer will depend on the answers to those two questions.
> 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.
I think a better example is Westboro Baptist Church they are a protected class and I think there are more individuals on this site that would disagree with their protected class status due to the fact that they more reflect the ideals of QAnon but wrapped up in a religion. Again I don't advocate for them, and find them to be of the most repugnant probably more so than QAnon or ISIS, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of taking a stance not on principal but on what one agrees with, which seems to be the norm now days.
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.
I would not support members of the WBC losing their jobs even if they protest (legally) with vulgarities outside of their jobs. They are indeed protected under their religious class. If this former Citi employee can successfully argue before a court that his views are the result of a sincere religious belief then I believe he should get his job back.
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).
If this former Citi employee can successfully argue before a court that his views are the result of a sincere religious belief then I believe he should get his job back.
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.
I think the real chilling thing here is your attack against freedom of association while ironically complaining that the world is becoming more like 1984. Sure, like all rights freedom of association has its limits, especially around protected classes and unions in the business world. But should the government really step in and force me to continue to employ a holocaust denier just because he makes me a lot of money? Should the government really stop me from kicking out a dude dressed in a KKK outfit from my store?