# Opinions you are not allowed to hold



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 22, 2012)

I find this frustrating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...39.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&ir=Politics



> A Vermont inn's owners are campaigning against same-sex marriage in Maine -- despite the fact that their previously-expressed stance on the issue cost them $30,000 in a discrimination lawsuit.
> 
> Jim and Mary O'Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Va., have joined the Maine-based. In a new ad, the O'Reillys speak out against Maine recognizing same-same marriage via "Question 1" on the Nov. 6 ballot.
> 
> ...



The article also takes note of another recent event:



> Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University Chief Diversity Officer, was placed on leave after it was discovered that she had signed an anti-gay marriage petition to overturn a Maryland law that would allow same-sex couples to wed. An ad by the Maryland Marriage Alliance features McCaskill and claims that Question 6 threatens the liberty and livelihood of anyone who is against gay marriage, the Baltimore Sun reported.



Now, the point is not really that the O'Reillys should or should not allow same-sex weddings at their inn.  I get the argument that if they are open to the public, they may not discriminate in that way.  But the article seems to be making the point that it is NOT OK for them to hold an opinion AGAINST same-sex marriage, NOT OK for them to support legislation ending same-sex marriage, and that frankly, they should have learned after being slapped to the tune of $30,000 for refusing to allow a same-sex wedding at their establishment.

I believe that they are allowed to have an opinion - whether or not anyone agrees with it.  They are allowed to support ending same-sex marriage legality in their state.  They are breaking no law.  This makes it seem as if they are the worst people in the world, and even worse, it seems to be insinuating that they should NOT BE ALLOWED to feel this way; or at least to talk about it.

The same goes for the professor who was put on leave, Angela McCaskill.  She was the 'Diversity Officer' of Gallaudet University, which is terribly ironic, and one could easily understand why it would be unprofessional in some sense.  However, like anyone else, so long as she does her job and does not discriminate, (and it appears from other articles that no one has ever complained about the work she did), then I do not understand WHY she is NOT ALLOWED to have an opinion contrary to same-sex marriage.

Frankly, it's turning into a bit of a witch-hunt.  This whole thing smacks of McCarthyism to me.  It's like being accused of being a communist in the US in the 1950s; it's not just that being against same-sex marriage is not PC, apparently it's not to be permitted.  That is, you may not hold the opinion that you're against it; or you lose your job, you get sued, you get 'noticed' in the newspaper, etc, etc.

Disturbing.

And again, it's not really about whether or not same-sex marriage is a great and good thing.  It's about the *right to hold an opinion* on the issue that the same-sex marriage proponents do not approve of.  I always get my back up a bit when someone tells me not to do something.  But what really gets me riled up is when they tell me what I am and am not allowed to say or think.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 22, 2012)

Holding an opinion, even one that most view as ignorant is not against the law.  Discrimination in a public venue is in many cases.  Lets drop the gay marriage thing for a moment.  Lets say it was serving blacks in a resteraunt or a whites only hotel.  While some of our more Libertarian friends would not have as much an issue with that, those actions would be up for court action.  As of now, same sex marriage is legal in Maine and therefore subject to discrimination laws.  Just as many still offer up opinions that same sex marriage is wrong and have a right to do so, others have a right to call that opinion ignorant.  The world is changing and always have.  These type of differences in opinion will be happening as long as change does.  Yes, I do think there is a line.  That line is between persecuting someone for JUST voicing an opinion.  Everyone has a right to thier opinion, but sometimes acting on those opinions will get you in trouble if it steps on someone else's rights.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 22, 2012)

They didn't get fined for holding an opinion. They got fined for being the proprieters of a place open to the public that hosts weddings and refusing to allowed a LEGAL wedding that they didn't approve of. IF they can get the law changed, then they will no longer be obligated to host same sex weddings. But so long as the law stands, then they can either host anybody, or nobody. They violated the law. It's that simple.

Claiming that they were fined for their opinions is bogus.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 22, 2012)

All good takes on the various facets of this fractious aspect of the social-legal pact we all share in :bows:.


----------



## Buka (Oct 22, 2012)

An example of why we are doomed. The fact that any amount of time what-so-ever is spent on things like this, as opposed to real problems that we face as a nation and a species - this is just beyond me.

I don't give a rat's *** if a donkey marries a doughnut, I have more pressing problems as a citizen of the United States, DAMN IT.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 22, 2012)

Personally, I think equal rights for ALL of our citizens is important.   Yeah there are other issues that are important, but I don't think equal rights should be relegated to stuff we'll deal with later/never.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 23, 2012)

I don't want to speak for Bill, but *I* think you missed what he was saying, and if so he and I are in agreement here: The issue was not about the action taken against these people, but rather how the article portrayed them specifically for holding these opinions... The concept that they are inherently flawed people for holding an unpopular viewpoint regarding the subject matter.  

I've seen in with other issues as well, Green Energy, Global Warming, Abortion, the Infallibility of the almighty "Science",  etc... Certain viewpoints you just aren't allowed to disagree with without being labeled as an Unintelligent, uneducated backwater nutjob with an IQ roughly equal to a Possum.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 23, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> They didn't get fined for holding an opinion. They got fined for being the proprieters of a place open to the public that hosts weddings and refusing to allowed a LEGAL wedding that they didn't approve of. IF they can get the law changed, then they will no longer be obligated to host same sex weddings. But so long as the law stands, then they can either host anybody, or nobody. They violated the law. It's that simple.
> 
> Claiming that they were fined for their opinions is bogus.


This part I agree with. If it's the law, then they have to abide by it. However, I have a major problem with the second event. Putting someone on leave for signing a petition? That's not right at all! It doesn't matter if it's same-sex marriage, or even supporting whites only hotels (which I honestly think shouldn't be illegal. I don't think it's right at all, but if people want to be *******s let them be *******s. It's their business, they own the place, they should have the right to refuse service to whom they want, even if they're being complete jerks in doing so. Besides, if they do feel that way and are forced to let them in, the other races will undoubtedly receive worse treatment than white people there, so in reality it's saving them a bad vacation. *(Also, this opinion does not extend to something such as job offers, because the livelihood of people are involved in that.)* Ok, rant over.), if publicly agreeing with something can get you 'placed on leave' and possibly fired, then people would never agree with radical ideas, good or bad, and progress would never be made.


----------



## granfire (Oct 23, 2012)

hmmm

I am thinking there is more to the story.
Not sure how they got picked for the article...maybe complained to the reporter?

I wonder if the signing the petition was just the tip of the iceberg. These folks don't seem to be shy about the way they think and wish the world would work.


interesting thing tho - and I am a little on the fence about it - if it is your livelyhood, why not host the wedding? Apparently they did not have the excuse of being booked up for the date.

On the other hand of course I do admire people who put conviction ahead of $$$.


But there are way too many people fixated on the 1% that makes a person that happens in the privacy of closed bedroom doors. (and in turn they would be outraged if they would be scrutinized in the same manner)


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2012)

If swingers wanted to hold an event there would they be "protected"?

If the KKK wanted to host an event?

If the local chapter of the "Bloods" wanted to host a rap concert?

Etc.

Etc.

I'm not insinuating that these people were "right or wrong" in what they did, or that a gay marriage reception is on the same level as the above....just trying to see where the "line" is for business owners in who they are "allowed" to deal with or not.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2012)

Anecdote:

Speaking to my wife about this issue, she mentioned her days as a manager at a bridal salon. She said she used to field numerous calls from men requesting to come in and try on dresses. She was directed to tell them "of course" and then give simple requirements such as "since all of our employees are female you will have to come wearing athletic compression shorts or some other form of underwear of that sort". Over the years she worked there however only one man ever actually showed up. She believes that they were "test calls" for lawsuit seekers.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Everyone has a right to thier opinion, but sometimes acting on those opinions will get you in trouble if it steps on someone else's rights.



Yes, but apparently even holding the opinion will get you in trouble, witness the woman suspended from her job for signing a petition in favor of repealing same-sex marriage.  That's what I'm talking about, not denying anyone any rights.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Claiming that they were fined for their opinions is bogus.



I made no such claim, read it again.

I said that they were being reported on in the news for holding their opinions, and furthermore, the other person in the story was suspended at her employment for signing a petition against same-sex marriage.  Let's not leave that out.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Buka said:


> An example of why we are doomed. The fact that any amount of time what-so-ever is spent on things like this, as opposed to real problems that we face as a nation and a species - this is just beyond me.
> 
> I don't give a rat's *** if a donkey marries a doughnut, I have more pressing problems as a citizen of the United States, DAMN IT.



Not the point, but thanks for sharing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Personally, I think equal rights for ALL of our citizens is important.   Yeah there are other issues that are important, but I don't think equal rights should be relegated to stuff we'll deal with later/never.



Not the point, and I said that clearly in my initial post.  Would you care to address my point, or not?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't want to speak for Bill, but *I* think you missed what he was saying, and if so he and I are in agreement here: The issue was not about the action taken against these people, but rather how the article portrayed them specifically for holding these opinions... The concept that they are inherently flawed people for holding an unpopular viewpoint regarding the subject matter.
> 
> I've seen in with other issues as well, Green Energy, Global Warming, Abortion, the Infallibility of the almighty "Science",  etc... Certain viewpoints you just aren't allowed to disagree with without being labeled as an Unintelligent, uneducated backwater nutjob with an IQ roughly equal to a Possum.



THANK YOU!

Yes, that was my point.  I realize that the couple who own the inn were not fined for their opinions, but rather for their actions, which violated the law in Maine, and I said that.  However, they are being excoriated for their OPINIONS, which apparently, they are not permitted to have - and we see in this thread that besides you and me, no one quite gets that.

The same would be true of the other person I mentioned, a 'Diversity Officer' at a university who was suspended from her job for signing a petition against same-sex marriage.  Now there is a clear example of someone potentially losing their job for holding an unpopular opinion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

granfire said:


> These folks don't seem to be shy about the way they think and wish the world would work.



Which folks would that be?  I see a lot of people on both sides of the issue making very clear statements about what should and should not be permitted.



> interesting thing tho - and I am a little on the fence about it - if it is your livelyhood, why not host the wedding? Apparently they did not have the excuse of being booked up for the date.
> 
> On the other hand of course I do admire people who put conviction ahead of $$$.
> 
> But there are way too many people fixated on the 1% that makes a person that happens in the privacy of closed bedroom doors. (and in turn they would be outraged if they would be scrutinized in the same manner)



Again, my post was not about what the couple did that broke the law when they refused to host a same-sex wedding at their inn.  I said that I fully understood why they were sued, etc.  I was speaking of their public excoriation in the press for having a public opinion against same-sex marriage afterwards.  The tenor of the article appears to be 'how dare they' or 'you would think they'd have learned their lesson by now'.

Apparently people agree with the article.  You are not allowed to have an opinion if it is not in favor of same-sex marriage.  If you do, you may be excoriated in the press, or you may lose your job, and too bad for you for being a bad person.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 23, 2012)

Don't have the time to give a 'good' reply to this one as the Net Nannie is about to cut me off 

Hpwever, some opinions bring upon themselves the reproach that they deserve and some do not, even if the underlining idea of philosophy deserves scorning - where the line goes is one of those 'social aggregation' calculations that we often go through when we agree to live together in groups.  Consigning people to the pillory via the press has a long standing tradition amongst those who would seek to determine where that 'line' goes.  Whilst I applaud the freedom of the press to expose and inform where needed, I do fear that sometimes it is this power to sway public opinion is one that serves those that own the paper and determine it's editorial path rather that any legitimate public interest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Hpwever, some opinions bring upon themselves the reproach that they deserve and some do not, even if the underlining idea of philosophy deserves scorning - where the line goes is one of those 'social aggregation' calculations that we often go through when we agree to live together in groups.  Consigning people to the pillory via the press has a long standing tradition amongst those who would seek to determine where that 'line' goes.  Whilst I applaud the freedom of the press to expose and inform where needed, I do fear that sometimes it is this power to sway public opinion is one that serves those that own the paper and determine it's editorial path rather that any legitimate public interest.



Well said.  But consider the entirety of what I posted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/angela-mccaskill-gallaude_n_1972044.html



> Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University Chief Diversity Officer, Seeks Reinstatement
> By BRIAN WITTE 10/16/12 07:07 PM ET
> ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- The chief diversity officer at the nation's leading university for the deaf and hard of hearing is *fighting for her job after signing a petition* to put same-sex marriage on the ballot next month.
> 
> ...



This has nothing to do with the press.  She has effectively lost her job and is fighting to regain it because she signed a petition expressing her political opinion.

Despite the fact that as 'Diversity Officer' of Gallaudet, it has an unseemly affect for her to be apparently against same-sex marriage, in what way is this cause for termination?

So if I say in public that I'm voting for Gary Johnson, my employer can fire me because my employer is against Gary Johnson?  Is that how it is now?


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well said.  But consider the entirety of what I posted.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/angela-mccaskill-gallaude_n_1972044.html
> 
> ...



No, that is clearly wrong. Unless, of course you work for another candidate.

The case at Gallaudet is interesting. As Diversity Officer, you would expect the person to be open to all minorities. And to the full rights for all minorities. Signing that petition shows that she does not believe in full rights for gays. That can be construed as a conflict of interest. While it is conceivable that she would be able to set aside her personal views in the discharge of her duties, the optics are very wrong. 

She did not lose her job for having that opinion. She lost her job for making that opinion public, placing her employer in a very akward position.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> No, that is clearly wrong. Unless, of course you work for another candidate.



The fine line is 'opinion' versus 'action'.  If I work for the federal government, must I vote for the incumbent President?  No.  Nor do I have to hold opinions based on the current Administration.  However, I am expected to do my job, even if some of the policies being implemented are not ones I agree with.  Agreed?



> The case at Gallaudet is interesting. As Diversity Officer, you would expect the person to be open to all minorities. And to the full rights for all minorities. Signing that petition shows that she does not believe in full rights for gays. That can be construed as a conflict of interest. While it is conceivable that she would be able to set aside her personal views in the discharge of her duties, the optics are very wrong.



I think here we are talking about the appearance of wrongdoing, versus the act of doing something wrong.  Signing the petition does not show what she did or did not do in her capacity as Diversity Officer.  One would expect that if she had failed in her duties, that would be the reason for her involuntary suspension.



> She did not lose her job for having that opinion. She lost her job for making that opinion public, placing her employer in a very akward position.



So it's OK to have an opinion, but you can't talk about it, if it embarrasses your boss.

Hmmm.  So if I have a political bumper sticker on my car in the parking lot of my employer and it's the opposite of the one my employer endorses, it's OK to fire me?  After all, I have made my opinion public...

I honestly do not think Gallaudet has a leg to stand on here.  If she loses her job (she is currently on paid leave until the situation is resolved), I suspect she has a dandy lawsuit.

But I find it interesting and noteworthy that people who are expressing opinions that do not support same-sex marriage are being excoriated in the press as if they were criminals for holding that view.

Shall we next start firing climatologists who refuse to agree that climate change is man-made, or who express the opinion that perhaps it is not man-made, either publicly or privately?

At what point does this start to resemble the McCarthy hearings and subsequent Blacklisting of actors, etc?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 23, 2012)

I as a business owner believe in the "right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason" concept.
Government says "Thats fine, except in these cases".
So I can't refuse service to religions, races, or sexual orientations that I disagree with.
I either serve all or none as it were.
I don't agree with government sticking their nose into business. I should live or die on my own. Ban X, and hope the supporters of my decision outweigh the negative attention I get for doing so, and so forth.

But that's my call.  I should be allowed to do so. I should be allowed to have, and express my opinions, no matter how backward, obscene, or bizarre.

You should be allowed to call me on them, refute them, and so forth.

Without worry that we lose jobs, face fines, and what not.

If the O'Reilys want to deny same-sex couples their services, they should be allowed to do so.
I should also be allowed to not patronize them and hope they go under.
Opinions. Expressions of opinions. Somewhere there's a Constitution involved.

Now, someone might say "but Bob, there's a whole list of things you don't let us say here".
Yup. Private property and all that. Don't like it, go elsewhere. As the guy paying the bills with money from advertisers and supporters, I have to hope that I'll gain more than I will lose so I keep the sites 'doors' open.  If I'm wrong, someone buys MT at fire-sale rates.

I think it's a mess really. Ultimately, I agree with Bill, though I suspect I've wandered around a bit on the topic, which I apologize for.


----------



## granfire (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, but apparently even holding the opinion will get you in trouble, witness the woman suspended from her job for signing a petition in favor of repealing same-sex marriage.  That's what I'm talking about, not denying anyone any rights.




Like I said, I am suspecting there was a lot more going on than just signing a petition.

For all we know that was just the final straw. Of course, it does not fit  the story that the poor woman was persecuted for her opinion.

(ever since I have seen first hand the two stories to an issue, both the real life scenario as it played out and the sap story from a tabloid magazine, I am exceedingly jaded. The poor victims seem to have enough skeletons themselves to make you go hmm)


----------



## billc (Oct 23, 2012)

I think people are assuming too much to begin with on the diversity officer...


> *after signing a petition* to put same-sex marriage on the ballot next month.



She did not, in fact, state her opinion on this matter.  Her opinion would be stated when she actually goes to vote on the matter, as opposed to having the issue decided by a judge.  She may very well support gay marriage, and she may want to actually vote for it.  She could also be against it, and want to vote that way as well.  I have signed my name on the petition for candidates, democrats, to get their name on the ballot in my state, simply because I believe in their right to be on the ballot.  I fully planned on voting for their opponent, but I still signed the petition.

So, it isn't even her opinion that she is being punished for here, it is the act of wanting that opinion decided on by the rest of the community.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I think people are assuming too much to begin with on the diversity officer...
> 
> 
> She did not, in fact, state her opinion on this matter.  Her opinion would be stated when she actually goes to vote on the matter, as opposed to having the issue decided by a judge.  She may very well support gay marriage, and she may want to actually vote for it.  She could also be against it, and want to vote that way as well.  I have signed my name on the petition for candidates, democrats, to get their name on the ballot in my state, simply because I believe in their right to be on the ballot.  I fully planned on voting for their opponent, but I still signed the petition.
> ...



Excellent point.  Although I doubt many will believe that, whether it turns out to be true or not.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The fine line is 'opinion' versus 'action'.  If I work for the federal government, must I vote for the incumbent President?  No.  Nor do I have to hold opinions based on the current Administration.  However, I am expected to do my job, even if some of the policies being implemented are not ones I agree with.  Agreed?



Agreed. 





> I think here we are talking about the appearance of wrongdoing, versus the act of doing something wrong.  Signing the petition does not show what she did or did not do in her capacity as Diversity Officer.  One would expect that if she had failed in her duties, that would be the reason for her involuntary suspension.
> 
> 
> So it's OK to have an opinion, but you can't talk about it, if it embarrasses your boss.



It goes beyond embarassing your boss. When you publicaly express an opinion that casts a doubt about your ability to discharge your duties, it crosses the line.

She most likely did not sign that petition in her official capacity. But doing so casts a shadow as to her impartiality on a subject.



> Hmmm.  So if I have a political bumper sticker on my car in the parking lot of my employer and it's the opposite of the one my employer endorses, it's OK to fire me?  After all, I have made my opinion public...



No, unless your employer is a political candidate or your duty involves promoting your employer's political views.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> It goes beyond embarassing your boss. When you publicaly express an opinion that casts a doubt about your ability to discharge your duties, it crosses the line.



I disagree.  Innocent until proven guilty, etc.  Casting a doubt sufficient grounds for termination?  I think not.



> She most likely did not sign that petition in her official capacity. But doing so casts a shadow as to her impartiality on a subject.



So all they have to do is to prove that and then terminate her.



> No, unless your employer is a political candidate or your duty involves promoting your employer's political views.



Does her employment involve promoting her employer's views?  I'm not seeing that as a facet of most employment contracts.  It is essentially saying "You don't just work for me, you must be FOR me and tell people that you are FOR  me."  I don't know of any such jobs, but maybe they exist.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 23, 2012)

I don't believe a person should be fired for JUST voicing thier opinion, and in the example from the article, we do not know if that was the case or not.  Hopefully not.

It is my view that many people have no problem using thier free speech rights and expressing thier varied opinions on all sorts of issues.  At the same time, it seems some want to abdicate the responsibility taken when that right is excercised.  You may say anything you want to say, ranging from the very profound to the shockingly ignorant, but anything you utter has a price tag on it.  You are free to say it, you are not free from the repurcussions of saying it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I don't believe a person should be fired for JUST voicing thier opinion, and in the example from the article, we do not know if that was the case or not.  Hopefully not.



Nothing so far to indicate anything else.



> It is my view that many people have no problem using thier free speech rights and expressing thier varied opinions on all sorts of issues.  At the same time, it seems some want to abdicate the responsibility taken when that right is excercised.  You may say anything you want to say, ranging from the very profound to the shockingly ignorant, but anything you utter has a price tag on it.  You are free to say it, you are not free from the repurcussions of saying it.



There are always consequences for exercising one's rights.  That *does not make all repercussions fair game.*  What if someone took exception to her signing of the petition and punched her in the head, or fired her husband from HIS job, or ran over one of her kids?  All repercussions she should expect for exercising her rights?  Yes, I am illustrating an extreme here, but trying to make a point.  Repercussions are one thing.  Illegal repercussions are another.  That's properly called *'retaliation'.*

I don't think you can just wave off anything that happens to her as 'well she got what she deserved'.  So far as I know, employment contracts don't have anything to say about an employee's political beliefs.  Unless you know of any that do, in which case let me know.


----------



## Carol (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree.  Innocent until proven guilty, etc.  Casting a doubt sufficient grounds for termination?  I think not.



Innocent until proven guilty is for a person charged with a violation of criminal law and has nothing to do with the employment relationship.  It is lawful to terminate someone for stealing, for example, even with no police involvement.

With at-will employment, a person can be lawfully terminated for any reason that doesn't violate laws (e.g. Termination based on gender, etc)

Not everything that is lawful is fair, wise, or even good business.



> So all they have to do is to prove that and then terminate her.



They likely do not have to prove that to lawfully terminate her.  Typically the only burden of proof that is on the employer is if the employer seeks to deny a UI claim on the grounds of gross misconduct or other reasons permissible by law.  If the employer seeks to deny a claim and the terminated employee does not request a hearing, the terminated employee will not get benefits.  However' if the terminated employee requests a hearing or an appeal to a hearings decision, the burdens of proof are on the employer.



> Does her employment involve promoting her employer's views?  I'm not seeing that as a facet of most employment contracts.  It is essentially saying "You don't just work for me, you must be FOR me and tell people that you are FOR  me."  I don't know of any such jobs, but maybe they exist.



Employment contracts are not very common.  A substantial majority of gainfully employed Americans work on an at-will basis although there certainly some exceptions. I only volunteer for LPNH but no one has asked me to be a member of the Libertarian Party of NH to go out canvassing (I am not a member).

I do think it is is possible for a person to conduct themselves in their personal life in a way that interfere with their ability to earn the trust of the person they are serving, which can be a CLM (career-limiting manoeuver).  I do not necessarily agree, but that does not mean such a thing is unlawful.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Valid points, I stand corrected.  So, as it appears, you CAN be legally fired for holding an opinion.  And I guess it's an odious opinion like not being in favor of same-sex marriage, then hooray.  What a world.  Either have the 'correct' opinion in public, or lose your job.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Valid points, I stand corrected.  So, as it appears, you CAN be legally fired for holding an opinion.  And I guess it's an odious opinion like not being in favor of same-sex marriage, then hooray.  What a world.  Either have the 'correct' opinion in public, or lose your job.



Yup. The employers typically hold all the power, since we don't have Right To Work.   I can be fired for not doing Volunteer work or Community Service in their name on my time off from work.   "Give up your time to advance our agenda and make us look good, or we will penalize you for not doing so."  (Granted, its a little more complicated of an issue than "Do it or get fired" but the possibility still stands.)


----------



## Carol (Oct 24, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Yup. The employers typically hold all the power, since we don't have Right To Work.   I can be fired for not doing Volunteer work or Community Service in their name on my time off from work.   "Give up your time to advance our agenda and make us look good, or we will penalize you for not doing so."  (Granted, its a little more complicated of an issue than "Do it or get fired" but the possibility still stands.)



That is actually a very common mistake people make when looking at employment laws.  All 50 states are "at-will" states.

 A "Right To Work" state means your employer cannot force you to join a union as a mandatory condition of employment. Right To Work states are primarily in the south and midwest -- workers in those states have both Right To Work and Employment At Will.

A preclusion to Employment At Will would be a employment contract or a Collective Bargaining Agreement that specifies the term of employment...but the majority of working Americans do not work under such an agreement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2012)

Carol said:


> That is actually a very common mistake people make when looking at employment laws.  All 50 states are "at-will" states.
> 
> A "Right To Work" state means your employer cannot force you to join a union as a mandatory condition of employment. Right To Work states are primarily in the south and midwest -- workers in those states have both Right To Work and Employment At Will.
> 
> A preclusion to Employment At Will would be a employment contract or a Collective Bargaining Agreement that specifies the term of employment...but the majority of working Americans do not work under such an agreement.



I guess I'm just sad that a person would be fired for not being for same-sex marriage and other people think that's a good thing.  A shame.  I would not want a person to be fired for being of either opinion; I think it's none of my business if I'm their employer.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 24, 2012)

I agree, Bill.  Personal opinions that do not impinge on your ability to do your job are noones business but your own.

But I can't help but ponder what the story is in this particular case as I cannot imagine it's as clear cut as it's been presented.


----------



## granfire (Oct 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I guess I'm just sad that a person would be fired for not being for same-sex marriage and other people think that's a good thing.  A shame.  I would not want a person to be fired for being of either opinion; I think it's none of my business if I'm their employer.



I am guessing here that their behavior disrupted the work place.
There are people who cannot keep their opinion to themselves, and what it is worse: they cannot convey them in a civilized manner. 

Or, and that could also be a reason why they got a sit-down, their terms of employment include the little gig called the Hash Act. I might have misspelled it.
It prevents people employed in certain government installations from voicing their opinion on many aspects. 
And that can get you your walking papers in a heart beat!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2012)

granfire said:


> I am guessing here that their behavior disrupted the work place.
> There are people who cannot keep their opinion to themselves, and what it is worse: they cannot convey them in a civilized manner.
> 
> Or, and that could also be a reason why they got a sit-down, their terms of employment include the little gig called the Hash Act. I might have misspelled it.
> ...



I have no reason to believe that her behavior disrupted the work place.  If that were the case, I believe the employer would have given that as a reason instead of the reason they gave, which was that she signed a petition to put same-sex marriage on the state ballot.  There is no reason they would give a particular reason for letting her go that is MORE controversial than a simple "she was disruptive at work," which would not have even made the news.

Usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.  The employer said it was for signing the petition.  I am going to believe that is actually what happened unless I get information that proves that's not what happened.


----------



## Carol (Oct 24, 2012)

I am  not seeing a person losing their job, nor am I seeing any posters that are happy about it.   Personally I don't take a "you're either with us or you're against us" view for controversial topics, I discuss many from a neutral point of view.  In this case, I don't know if that's a bad thing or not.   

The Chief Diversity Officer from Gallaudet is on paid administrative leave -- which is not the same as being fired.  She said she signed the petition for [personal reasons] AND to spark a campus-wide discussion on the matter.  There's more going on here than just a personal view, to my eyes.  I don't know  "Chief Diversity Officer" may have a different impact than a comptroller or database administrator or high-rise window washer.

The university indicates they want to work out an agreement so she keeps her job.  That doesn't sound to me like an org that's just looking for any reason to kick her to the curb.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2012)

Carol said:


> The Chief Diversity Officer from Gallaudet is on paid administrative leave -- which is not the same as being fired.  She said she signed the petition for [personal reasons] AND to spark a campus-wide discussion on the matter.  There's more going on here than just a personal view, to my eyes.  I don't know  "Chief Diversity Officer" may have a different impact than a comptroller or database administrator or high-rise window washer.
> 
> The university indicates they want to work out an agreement so she keeps her job.  That doesn't sound to me like an org that's just looking for any reason to kick her to the curb.



First, I said that she was on leave, several times.  Others have changed that to 'fired' and I didn't bother to correct them.

Second, and this is I believe more to the point, when someone is placed on administrative leave, paid or unpaid, and then the employer makes statements about how they hope the employee can 'keep' their job, it means nothing less than that their job, as it currently stands, is history.  They have been effectively fired, even if they are still getting a paycheck.  It states rather plainly that unless some accommodation or understanding is reached, the job won't be retained.  In other words, if nothing changes from the way things stand, the job is bye-bye.

I have no doubt the employer wants the employee to keep her job NOW.  It's national news.  If it had not become such, what do you think the response would be after they put her on administrative leave?

I hate to say it, but it seems to me that the people who do NOT want to believe that this is PC run amok are dancing and twisting to spin this in any direction that makes it look as though it's not exactly what it appears to be.

Let's call a spade a spade and be done with it.  Her job is in jeopardy because she expressed an unpopular political opinion with regard to same-sex marriage.  No amount of spin-doctoring changes that.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 24, 2012)

Without having the job description, I see a position of Chief Diversity Officer as a person that ensures the University is inclusionnary. She can have all the personnal opinions she wants, but when she takes a public stance on what most see as contrary to the goal of the university, it casts the position and the university's position on diversity in a bad light. So they removed her from the position pending a review. Nothing wrong with that. It is perception because of the position she holds. She may have done it for good reasons, but it just does not read that way at first brish, and that is as far as most people will see.

Not unlike Bill's statement that she was fired because of a personal opinion, it could easily be spun as the Diversity Officer is anti-gay. Not the kind of publicity any employer would want.


----------



## geezer (Oct 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Shall we next start firing climatologists who refuse to agree that climate change is man-made, or who express the opinion that perhaps it is not man-made, either publicly or privately?



Hey Bill, just be glad you don't live in Italy. Did you catch this one about the Italian seizmologists who used the best science currently available to determine that the chance of a serious quake happening right away in the town of L'Aquila was quite small. But, even low probability events can occurr. A major quake did occurr, people died, and the scientists were _convicted of manslaughter _...for being honestly mistaken!!! 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcq...talian-seismologists-scientists-as-fall-guys/

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/23/163499530/italian-seismologists-convicted-of-manslaughter


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2012)

geezer said:


> Hey Bill, just be glad you don't live in Italy. Did you catch this one about the Italian seizmologists who used the best science currently available to determine that the chance of a serious quake happening right away in the town of L'Aquila was quite small. But, even low probability events can occurr. A major quake did occurr, people died, and the scientists were _convicted of manslaughter _...for being honestly mistaken!!!
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcq...talian-seismologists-scientists-as-fall-guys/
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2012/10/23/163499530/italian-seismologists-convicted-of-manslaughter



Yes, I did.  I was kind of wondering if we can put the fear-monger climatologists in prison if the whole 'six foot rise' in sea levels doesn't occur in the predicted time.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, I did.  I was kind of wondering if we can put the fear-monger climatologists in prison if the whole 'six foot rise' in sea levels doesn't occur in the predicted time.



Sure, if it means putting the lobbyist and politicians taking thier support in jail when climate change is "proven."


----------

