Re:When parties reverse their stance, supporters immediately...
by shadowgovt on Sunday January 17, 2021 @09:21AM
(#25810812)
The larger concern is they use SPLC's money to pay for venues for those sermons, or direct SPLC's resources away from SPLC's goals because those goals are counter to the individual's politics.
Companies ought to have the right to fire people acting counter to their goals.
Re:When parties reverse their stance, supporters immediately...
by AnthonyMouse on Sunday January 17, 2021 @10:13AM
(#25811275)
It's not "SPLC's money" once they've paid it to someone else for labor, any more than it was Planned Parenthood's money when a Catholic donates it to a church that gives sermons against abortion.
I don't know if I buy it, because the purpose of the wall is to constrain people from being punished for their beliefs, which you could do just as well with politics. That isn't the same as having their beliefs questioned in a public debate -- which we already do with religion. Questioning isn't punishment. Getting fired is punishment.
> imagine if he SPLC couldn't fire a staffer who's an active Klansman
The strongest objection to a Klansman is that they commit acts of violence. But violence isn't protected speech. If they're committing acts of violence, fire them.
Whereas if your only objection is that they go home and give sermons against interracial marriage while wearing a stupid hat, isn't that kind of the point?
How is it any different than Planned Parenthood can't fire a Catholic for opposing abortion outside of work?