Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:I’m genuinely confused why Burt thinks Facebook, Twitter, disney, etc have to do anything other than what their financial bottom line and org docs compel them to do.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I’m genuinely confused why Burt thinks Facebook, Twitter, disney, etc have to do anything other than what their financial bottom line and org docs compel them to do.

Following up before I shift into daddy daycare for the day, lest Burt bring up some whataboutisms:

1. Bigoted cake boss guy shouldn’t have to bake a cake for anyone he doesn’t want to

2. The government’s apparent interjection into the Robinhood company operation is appalling

I’m generally of the belief that companies can do whatever they want within the confine of the law, and that if someone starts a business, they don’t lose the right to their agency because their company become successful...

What the government SHOULD do is create a protected class of goods and services that provide certain unalienable rights to all on an equal basis: healthcare, auto loans, things like this. But if cake guy doesn’t want to bake a gay cake and Jack Dorsey doesn’t want to traffic in antimask nonsense, then more power to the both of them.

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Burt it sounds like you’ve been personally hurt by this.
The above posts from here outline just some of her thinking.
If you don’t see the problem There’s no point in trying to help you there.

Also if you have ted Fucking Cruz coming good your defence, you have even bigger problems.

Dime, you literally just did in this post what she was ranting against... guilt by association

tragabigzanda wrote:

4/5 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I’m genuinely confused why Burt thinks Facebook, Twitter, disney, etc have to do anything other than what their financial bottom line and org docs compel them to do.

I don't think he's disputing that. He's arguing that people shouldn't be applauding them doing this but rather should be upset/outraged, etc., that it's not only legally but now apparently socially acceptable for multinational corporations to fire people for things they say off the job.

I’m sure there’s ample outrage to be found on other sites.

surfndestroy wrote:The whole we fired you because you somehow are damaging our reputation when they never mention the company they work for is bullshit. It is absolutely silencing voices.
The whole idea that working with people who hold ideas contrary to your own makes a hostile work place is bullshit. It is only pertinent if they bring it into the work place. I've worked at places with people who thought only mothers should get custody of kids. It was easy to work with them, we didn't talk custody. I don't give a damn what someone thinks of me when they're on their own time as long as they treat me with respect at work.
You don't like Gina's insta post, then don't bring it up with her at work. If she brings up the topic at work that's different. But what she spouts on her own time should be irrelevant.

spike wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:The whole we fired you because you somehow are damaging our reputation when they never mention the company they work for is bullshit. It is absolutely silencing voices.
The whole idea that working with people who hold ideas contrary to your own makes a hostile work place is bullshit. It is only pertinent if they bring it into the work place. I've worked at places with people who thought only mothers should get custody of kids. It was easy to work with them, we didn't talk custody. I don't give a damn what someone thinks of me when they're on their own time as long as they treat me with respect at work.
You don't like Gina's insta post, then don't bring it up with her at work. If she brings up the topic at work that's different. But what she spouts on her own time should be irrelevant.

that's not what disney's worried about. they're worried about their image.

The Colin Kaepernick debacle wasn't that long ago.

spike wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:The whole we fired you because you somehow are damaging our reputation when they never mention the company they work for is bullshit. It is absolutely silencing voices.
The whole idea that working with people who hold ideas contrary to your own makes a hostile work place is bullshit. It is only pertinent if they bring it into the work place. I've worked at places with people who thought only mothers should get custody of kids. It was easy to work with them, we didn't talk custody. I don't give a damn what someone thinks of me when they're on their own time as long as they treat me with respect at work.
You don't like Gina's insta post, then don't bring it up with her at work. If she brings up the topic at work that's different. But what she spouts on her own time should be irrelevant.

that's not what disney's worried about. they're worried about their image.

McParadigm wrote:

The Colin Kaepernick debacle wasn't that long ago.

Nor was Jocelyn Morffi getting fired from her teaching job at a Catholic school for posting pictures of her wedding to another woman.

surfndestroy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

The Colin Kaepernick debacle wasn't that long ago.

Nor was Jocelyn Morffi getting fired from her teaching job at a Catholic school for posting pictures of her wedding to another woman.

Morffi firing was bullshit. Kaepernick is a little different as he was using employer time while in employer uniform. He brought it to the job.
If Gina was livestreaming her views from work and in costume or making script changes to express her views, then fire away. People should be allowed to be repugnant human beings away from the job.

4/5 wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

The Colin Kaepernick debacle wasn't that long ago.

Nor was Jocelyn Morffi getting fired from her teaching job at a Catholic school for posting pictures of her wedding to another woman.

Morffi firing was bullshit. Kaepernick is a little different as he was using employer time while in employer uniform. He brought it to the job.
If Gina was livestreaming her views from work and in costume or making script changes to express her views, then fire away. People should be allowed to be repugnant human beings away from the job.

I understand that. But I'm against him being blackballed for something that is only tangentially related (and shouldn't be related at all) to his job.

surfndestroy wrote:

4/5 wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

The Colin Kaepernick debacle wasn't that long ago.

Nor was Jocelyn Morffi getting fired from her teaching job at a Catholic school for posting pictures of her wedding to another woman.

Morffi firing was bullshit. Kaepernick is a little different as he was using employer time while in employer uniform. He brought it to the job.
If Gina was livestreaming her views from work and in costume or making script changes to express her views, then fire away. People should be allowed to be repugnant human beings away from the job.

I understand that. But I'm against him being blackballed for something that is only tangentially related (and shouldn't be related at all) to his job.

The blackballing was awful. He should have been a starting qb who spoke his beliefs outside of work and while not in uniform. Spoken to his employer about what is fair game during work related interviews.

surfndestroy wrote: The blackballing was awful. He should have been a starting qb who spoke his beliefs outside of work and while not in uniform. Spoken to his employer about what is fair game during work related interviews.

dimejinky99 wrote:Burt it sounds like you’ve been personally hurt by this.

dimejinky99 wrote:

Also if you have ted Fucking Cruz coming good your defence, you have even bigger problems.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I’m genuinely confused why Burt thinks Facebook, Twitter, disney, etc have to do anything other than what their financial bottom line and org docs compel them to do.

Following up before I shift into daddy daycare for the day, lest Burt bring up some whataboutisms:

1. Bigoted cake boss guy shouldn’t have to bake a cake for anyone he doesn’t want to

2. The government’s apparent interjection into the Robinhood company operation is appalling

I’m generally of the belief that companies can do whatever they want within the confine of the law, and that if someone starts a business, they don’t lose the right to their agency because their company become successful...

What the government SHOULD do is create a protected class of goods and services that provide certain unalienable rights to all on an equal basis: healthcare, auto loans, things like this. But if cake guy doesn’t want to bake a gay cake and Jack Dorsey doesn’t want to traffic in antimask nonsense, then more power to the both of them.