[coldtea]

>Yes, that was his right, and no one has ever said differently. But freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences in the realm of public opinion.

Those consequences shouldn't include "losing your job" or "being treated differently at work", else there's no freedom of speech.

How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

[dragonwriter]

> How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

Under the interpretations until recently of federal statutes [1], and under the law of most US states, they can, and largely the same groups fighting against marriage equality have been fighting to preserve and extend that condition, as well.

[1] Though recent EEOC decisions finding that discrimination based on gender identity and/or sex stereotypes are subtypes of discrimination based on sex may significantly limit the degree to which that is in practice true under federal law, but AFAIK those agency interpretations have not yet been tested in the courts.

[mkr-hn]

> How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

The fact that LGBT people can be fired without recourse is a central issue.

[levosmetalo]

So let's make a law that LGBT people can't be fired at all? I personally know one straight person that claimed he is gay and sued the company that fired him for discrimination. And he won.

[humanrebar]

Identities of the parties aside, How is this case different? Aren't you still harming someone for a bad reason (you don't like them and what they stand for)?

[mkr-hn]

I can't quite parse what you're saying. Can you rephrase or clarify?

[humanrebar]

Would Eich have recourse if he were passed up for the CEO spot? Why makes discriminating against LGBT people in the workplace different than discriminating against Eich in this case?

[mkr-hn]

I don't see how firing someone for an opinion is comparable to firing someone for sexual orientation. Neither should be allowed, but they're fundamentally different things.

[humanrebar]

Sometimes opinions flow seamlessly from a person's identity.

What if a gay principal is fired for supporting gay marriage. What if someone is a religious pacifist and the ballot issue had to do with gun control? Are those just opinions or is there no other option for a person given his or her identity?

I'd even go so far as to say that sometimes opinions are core to someone's identity. As in, the person would be fundamentally different if that opinion changed.

I'm not sure the issue is so cut-and-dry as you presume.

[Argorak]

> Those consequences shouldn't include "losing your job" or "being treated differently at work", else there's no freedom of speech.

Yes, they can. Freedom of speech is a right that you have before the state, not in front of you fellowship.

Everyone is fully entitled to refuse to follow you, on whichever ground they please, including a public or private statement by you.

[humanrebar]

Just because you can punish someone for political views doesn't mean you should. The freedom of speech can be an idea and an attitude that is bigger than the First Amendment.

[Argorak]

I don't care about the first amendment, as it doesn't cover me.

Please don't assume that I am speaking about that.

[humanrebar]

That's fine. Even more so, then, freedom of speech can be a social norm (tolerance of other viewpoints) that protects people beyond the minimum standards the government sets.

[fournm]

They can. It's legal in most states, ignoring states with "right to work" laws even. It's a known, serious issue in the United States.