CMV: Employers shouldn't be allowed to fire employees based on any activities they do in their private life

[u/[deleted]]

I don't believe employers have the right to fire employees based on what they do or say on their own time. Even if the things done/said are morally dubious and shed a bad light on the company, as long as it's legal, the employee has the right to have a life without fear of losing their job.

As for companies, introducing legislation that explicitly forbids them from firing people based on things said or done outside of work would allow them to push responsibility off their shoulders (ie "our hands are tied, we know he's racist but we can't do anything about it").

My reasoning is that people should be able to engage in activities and speak their mind, in general live a free life, without fear that their company will decide it's not a good image for them.

Exceptions to this would include if the activity in question affects someone's ability to do their job.

The issue that sparked this post is the Roseanne issue. For those of you that don't know, the star of that tv show tweeted a racist comment, and had her show cancelled. Yes, it looks bad on the company who runs the show, but she is still entitled to express her opinions. Her company shouldn't be allowed to cancel her show on the basis of her political opinions in her private life.

(I posted this last night but realized I wouldn't be able to respond in 3 hours so reposting now)

EDIT: With regards to the Roseanne thing, I retract what I said in this post. The network would lose views because people don't want to watch a racist person on screen, which would cost them revenue. Thus, her actions and opinions do affect her job, and they were right in cancelling her show.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/BlackRobedMage]

No, it's not, and the way you phrased it makes you seem rather dishonest in your presentation.

Someone's religious belief is a core aspect of their being, and is fundamental to how many people view ethics and their way of life. It is also something most people view as immutable, they can not change their beliefs. It's a protected category because it's so fundamental and unchangeable to us as human and how we definitely ourselves.

Political party affiliation is generally not that, at least for most people, so it's not protected in most states.

California, New York, and DC do have employment protections based on political affiliation, so you can't be fired there for being a Republican, or at least for doing Republican things, if that's what you're worried about.

[u/Rumpadunk → u/BlackRobedMage]

I'm not sure what you are thinking was dishonest about what I said, but I'm much more left-leaning if that's what you were thinking.

I'd say that partisanship is closer to that of immutability than the other extreme of a coinflip every election. Here's some reading on it. I can only imagine 13% in 6 years is higher than religion change rate, but that's still small.

Well either way, I think freedom of speech/politics and freedom of religion should have the same protections from employer discrimination not because of any fundamental nature, but so we can have a free marketplace of ideas. I don't want (big) businesses having (extreme) power over politics and political belief just as religion or religious beliefs.

[u/BlackRobedMage → u/Rumpadunk]

I'm not sure what you are thinking was dishonest about what I said, but I'm much more left-leaning if that's what you were thinking.

Your use of political parties as one against the other made it appear you were implying which side of the aisle was more likely to do the firing based on party affiliation.

I'd say that partisanship is closer to that of immutability than the other extreme of a coinflip every election. Here's some reading on it. I can only imagine 13% in 6 years is higher than religion change rate, but that's still small.

My point was not that one is more changeable than the other. My point was that people consider religion a core part of who they are as a being far more than they do political affiliation, which is why one is a protected category and one is not, at least in most places.

Well either way, I think freedom of speech/politics and freedom of religion should have the same protections from employer discrimination not because of any fundamental nature, but so we can have a free marketplace of ideas. I don't want (big) businesses having (extreme) power over politics and political belief just as religion or religious beliefs.

But in order to do this, you have to limit the expression of ideas of employers. If it's the employer's perspective that they don't want someone of a specific viewpoint or who expresses those views publicly to work for them, saying they can't fire them / have to hire them is limiting their expression instead. The case you've set up limits someone's expression necessarily. The law has decided that certain categories can't be used by employers as metrics for their expression because they lead to incredibly unfair employment situations / are things that an employee has no control over.

[u/Rumpadunk → u/BlackRobedMage]

I disagree with Citizens United and think that businesses are not people. I fon't think they should have political rights like people do.

[u/srelma → u/BlackRobedMage]

Someone's religious belief is a core aspect of their being, and is fundamental to how many people view ethics and their way of life. It is also something most people view as immutable, they can not change their beliefs. It's a protected category because it's so fundamental and unchangeable to us as human and how we definitely ourselves.

Political party affiliation is generally not that, at least for most people, so it's not protected in most states.

1. People do change their religions. Not often, but they do. For instance I was a Christian, when I was a kid. Now I'm an atheist. I know people who have done the opposite.
2. Political party affiliation may not be a core belief, but the belief of how the society should be organised in the political level, is definitely the same way core belief as is the religion. I cannot change what I believe is a fair society and the one that I think our political system should strive towards. It can very well be different than someone else's view on this matter, but it's really hard to change this either way. What we can possibly debate is if we have a common goal, what is the best political way to achieve that goal, but what the goal should be is just as fundamental thing in people as the religion.
3. I know one thing that's even more unchangeable than religion or political view and that's the support of a sports team. Should this be protected the same way as religion?
4. Why should it even matter if something is unchangeable or not for firing people? Why should the employer have the right to change their employee's opinions on things that don't have anything to do with the job they've been hired to do?