I might argue that the freedom to not bake cakes or employ gay people with regards to religious rights is also part of the freedom of association. People either feel the love or they don't.
But it does motivate discussion on fraternity. A discussion of the disarmament of relations must begin with the movement of not only words.
Why another person chooses to do with their genitals is generally no not your business.
It is not a "freedom". It is prejudice and bigotry
In that way I would argue these moral results, which speaks more loudly than moral actions or moral speech combined, hangs in the air like a moral odor as we discuss the disarmament of relations.
Do we think people should be free to be bigoted?
People can discriminate all they want to so long as they don’t infringe of the freedoms of others. Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms. I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business. Should they discriminate against me I have no other option. If a person discriminated against me I can just punch them in the face (figuratively) and go elsewhere. Businesses should be required by law to abide by EEO/EOE laws for their customers as well as for their employees.
Being forced to do work they don’t want to do would impede the first party’s freedoms.
If you claim this:
“I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business.”
Then you claim that people can simply leave a job.
What if they also have no choice and have to work at a certain business?
By what process? The list may not be ironclad, but presumably someone has to actually make a list.
Or are you saying we don’t need a list?
If a patron of a business comes to do business, that business should welcome the business and ignore the personal biases and their own bigoted beliefs.
Criteria in this case being the same equal opportunity laws for employment should be applied towards the front of house.
Same folks who determine EOE law violations, same folks who determine discrimination violations.
This is a completely subjective criteria.
So now you have an appointed group who gets to force people to do work, under penalty of law.
That seems like a bad idea.
I am against bigotry.
I question the use of force as a way to alleviate it.
Mistakes are not binary, some of them are worse than others.
Messing up the spelling of someone's name is common and a subject of regular jest amongst journalists.
Slightly misquoting someone might be subject to some kind of internal discipline, it will at least lead to a correction being published.
Publishing mostly fiction without the exercise of fact-checking is much less forgivable in a news organisation. Willing credulity is not the standard journalists should be held to.
His story isn’t unique though about how social media descends on an individual to ruin their lives. He mentioned how the campaign made its way into the NYT via Twitter. All I’m saying is that we are all human, we all make mistakes, we should all be given an opportunity to learn from and grow from those mistakes.
Does he need to be publicly visible in NYT’s, probably not considering the history.
Could he produce shows where he’s not asked to determine the truth but just report it, possibly.
There are levels to mistakes, I hear you, and to make a public post about it on his blog definitively shows he doesn’t exactly know why this is happening to him or he wants to make a big grand stand about it.
Doesn’t matter. My statement still stands. People make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes have nothing to do with their jobs and yet, canceled...
I couldn't tell from the article.
Break every rule of your profession and publish a bunch of BS? We'll give you another chance. Gave an inappropriate backrub 10 years ago? You're out!
He should have been fired for Caliphate and expressly for Caliphate.
Look at the author of this piece.
Do you think a journalist who has no journalistic integrity is going to admit he got fired because he has no journalistic integrity?
Easier to get a sympathy by claiming it was about back rubs.
That said, seems like the easier narrative for the NYT to go with as well -- they don't have to own up to their editorial failures up the chain that way.
Andy Mills is not going to prison. Being called out publically for toxic behavior towards colleagues is not exactly a ruined life. He will be fine (just not as fine as when peers did not speak up).
Also "we all make mistakes". We are talking about an adult, who got a grown-up's salary, some mistakes are worse than others, and you should not make the same mistake again and again and again. Consequences help with that.
Oh please. If cancel culture were about learning from your mistakes we wouldn't haunt people for things they did decades ago.
But anyway: if there are no negative consequences, I seriously doubt the perpetrator will even consider their action a mistake.
There are mistakes that are considered table stakes for a role or a job and I’m for demotion of those individuals for it, but I don’t like seeing this cancel culture ruin lives.
It’s very high school and immature.