| >conversations that support your point are declared 'applicable', But that's not what's happening. >the difficult question is "what about employees whose political views are repugnant to you? Why is this a question? What part of any statement that I made lead to the implication that only a certain subset of employee's should be heard from? >The example of the cake bakery is easy to dismiss because it seems covered by existing law It's not only easily dismissable if the conversation called for it, it's actually just irrelevant to the current situation. They touch on two completely different subjects and contexts. A company targeting specific individuals on an ad-hoc basis has no bearing on a company empowering a government with its product. You have to strip both situations down to "employee has opinion, will business listen?" for the current conversation to make any sense. I'd say that'd be absurd to do but I guess that's what we're actually doing. >if a medical device company's employees are religious, should they force it to not sell to abortion providers? There is an appreciable difference between a company taking its employee's views and wishes into consideration and obeying laws. There is no law stating that Amazon has to sell this technology. It'd be hard to make such a law, for a whole host of reasons. I'd be happy to expand on such reasons since we're going to start having a civics conversation at any point now. These kind of analogies, again, are fundamentally mistaken. Because they confuse different issues, different subjects, and different contexts. It's a bad abstraction. |