So you consider it a valid argument that you should be allowed to fire an employee because their beliefs, their political donations, or to whom they voted COULD cause you financial harm? Or at what point is the threshold?

Liberals are always so impressed with the courage of other liberals who "speak out", but this courage never seems to carry any risk. By contrast, conservatives seem to get kicked out of school, physically attacked, lose their jobs, or get sued fairly often over their political convictions.

BTW, my own debt to Mythago’s charity of choice is still open, as that bet was over how the court cases would be decided under then-existing law, not over whether voters would ultimately undo it. She hasn’t claimed it yet, so feel free to drop her a line if you’re still in touch.

Eckern wasn’t just an ordinary employee. He was the boss. The gay artists wouldn’t just be working for a company who happens to employ someone who lobbies against their interests; they would be working for that very person. Maybe you don’t think the distinction is important, but I do.

Of course, the institution could have told the activists to f*** off, but they’ve got their economic self-interest to look out for. I doubt they’d take much solace in “taking a stand” if they found themselves unable to put on any productions.

All Eckern did was donate his own money, on his own time, to a cause he personally believed in. He was completely within his rights to do that.

And the gay rights activists weren’t completely within their rights to speak out against his actions? I don’t get it. I guess I didn’t realize that it was somehow illegal or immoral to use economic pressure to advance your goals.

Now I’ll freely admit that this troubles me, because I’m not entirely sure where the line is or ought to be. But just as I’m free to express my opinion, others are free to react to my opinion, such that when I publicly express an opinion that’s unpopular, I’m not sure I have a right to expect that to be completely consequence-free. I shouldn’t be arrested or fined for, say, giving a large donation to the Klan, but I shouldn’t expect doing so to have no impact on how (or even whether) people interact with me, either.

tgirsch´s last blog post..Gotta Love Them Wingers!

I wasn’t aware that anybody fired anybody. I do not think the company would have been within their rights to fire the guy.

Technically, they didn’t. He resigned “voluntarily,” after they scheduled an emergency meeting.

Personally, I think a clear line needs to be drawn between individuals and institutions. No one ever accused CMT of being against gay marriage, or of involving itself in the political process in any way. The whole reason for the threatened boycott was that they had the nerve to employ one individual who did. And for that, the institution should have stood behind their employee and respectfully told the crowd to f*** off (and if something had to give, it would be “respectfully” part).

I appreciate you moderating your stance, but if you think there was no one to root for you haven’t moderated it enough. All Eckern did was donate his own money, on his own time, to a cause he personally believed in. He was completely within his rights to do that.

I wasn’t aware that anybody fired anybody. I do not think the company would have been within their rights to fire the guy.

From where I sit, going after someone’s livelihood simply because his political views differ from yours places one beneath pond scum.

And that’s why I moderated my stance after reading more details. I have no problem at all with refusing to do business with someone who actively fights for a cause you find abhorrent (no matter what that cause is), but trying to get that somebody fired is another story.

Hell, yes.

On that, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t see why I shouldn’t allow my convictions to influence my decisions on whom to do business with. Would you continue to do business with someone who lobbies against gun rights if there were a comparable but pro-gun alternative available to you?

Look, I understand that there’s such a thing as taking things too far, but I don’t see what’s inherently wrong with “voting with your dollars,” as free market types like to say, or “if you don’t like it, go somewhere else,” as the conservatives like to say.

Finally, on the use of the term “terrorist,” I suppose your use is technically accurate, but it takes a whole lot of the sting out of the term if you insist on using it in this context. Most reasonable observers would agree, I think, that right or wrong, calling for someone’s proverbial head (i.e. firing) is not even the same league as literally cutting off their head, or killing a bunch of innocent people to “send a message.” Sure, jaywalking and assault are both technically “crimes,” but if you insist on frequently referring to jaywalkers and the like as “criminals,” you’re going to find yourself needed a harsher term to describe assailants and the like. Then again, we’ve established quite well that Xrlq loves him some hyperbole! :)

tgirsch´s last blog post..Accountability