• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?


  • Total voters
    40
If I found out that the secretary in my practice was secretly a racist or something like that, I would fire her immediately. I don't really care if the law thinks it's right or not. I'm not paying a racist with money that comes from my private practice. If the government comes after me, I'll just make up some other excuse, like it was poor job performance. That's what most employers do anyway, or when they're hiring you and find you undesireable they simply make up some other reason.

The laws are designed to save face so that the employers can't tell you to your face the real reasons why they're not hiring you, or firing you. They can make up any reason they want, it's their business. If you're a nut or someone offensive, they won't want you around.

As it pertains to this... it is foolish to brandish your political beliefs at your workplace anyway. It's not professional.
 
I think it's even simpler then this...At Will employment allows employers to terminate their employees for no reason whatsoever. I don't believe this law suit will be found to have merit and will be dismissed thus protecting the rights of the employer.

Normally I agree that employers should be able to terminate people for any reason or for no reason...but this is an exception. The whole point of democracy is for each person to vote their conscience. If instead they vote their employer's conscience, then we no longer have a democracy but an oligarchy of business owners.

The people who voted for Proposition 8 are despicable human beings for whom I have no sympathy. This kind of hatred should never have made its way onto the ballot in the first place. Nevertheless, it could've just as easily been some other kind of proposition or the shoe could've just as easily been on the other foot. The democratic system doesn't work properly if workers' jobs are on the line depending on how they vote.
 
No such right exists.

"At will" employment has its definitions and limits, and political lean is not grounds to terminate.

Georgia, for example, is a "right to work" state, but there are wrongful termination statues. This would definately violate that. What good is democracy when your employer can tell you who/what to vote for or your lose your job? Unfortuantely, there are many instances here in Taiwan where businesses told their employees to vote for Ma for president a few months ago. Look where that got them....
 
I think it's even simpler then this...At Will employment allows employers to terminate their employees for no reason whatsoever. I don't believe this law suit will be found to have merit and will be dismissed thus protecting the rights of the employer.

I can't speak for every state, but this is NOT the case in Georgia. All workers, contract or at will, are protected by wrongful termination statutes that are on the books. The employer must show reason for termination - and a vote on a referendum would not pass muster - at least not in Georgia.
 
Ballots are secret for a reason. A person can't be fired for how they voted. However, they can be fired for espousing those political beliefs in an unprofessional way when they should be working.
 
Ballots are secret for a reason. A person can't be fired for how they voted. However, they can be fired for espousing those political beliefs in an unprofessional way when they should be working.

So, if the person in question arrived early to work and someone else did, too, and they were discussing prop 8 and one voted for it and the other against it, neither one should be fired, right, because neither one can be said to have wasted the company's time?

And, if both people weren't early and they were discussing their votes on company time (God forbid), they should both be fired because they equally 'stole' from the company?

Whatever.

Conversation about all matters of life is a normal part of everyday human activity. We are humans, not corporate automotons.

Ballots are secret to that you don't have to reveal who or what you voted for if you do not wish to. Not so that you need to be afraid to. What kind of twisted craziness got you to think the latter rather than the former?
 
Last edited:
So, if the person in question arrived early to work and someone else did, too, and they were discussing prop 8 and one voted for it and the other against it, neither one should be fired, right, because neither one can be said to have wasted the company's time?

And, if both people weren't early and they were discussing their votes on company time (God forbid), they should both be fired because they equally 'stole' from the company?

Whatever.

Conversation about all matters of life is a normal part of everyday human activity. We are humans, not corporate automotons.

Ballots are secret to that you don't have to reveal who or what you voted for if you do not wish to. Not so that you need to be afraid to. What kind of twisted craziness got you to think the latter rather than the former?

I notice you completely glossed over the whole "in an unprofessional way". When you get around to reading the whole post before responding, get back to me.
 
I would be very interested to see what a lot of these termination papers actually say about the person fired and the company's reason for doing so. I would imagine it has less to do with how these people voted and more to do with how they espoused their beliefs inappropriately or to parties who did not solicit their strong opinions.
 
I notice you completely glossed over the whole "in an unprofessional way". When you get around to reading the whole post before responding, get back to me.

I am sorry, I did gloss over that part. I guess it was because I assumed you were addressing the context of the thread.

"In an unprofessional way" is irrelevant to this discussion, really, because we don't know for sure how the person in question was behaving. According to the article, alongside the OP, we are led to believe we should be discussing the matter of being fired for political views in general, not the special case of how professionally we present them at the work place.

However, in that matter you are right. If a person is egregiously unprofessional in how they are presenting their views, they should probably be fired. Like, if they are constantly bringing it up and are spending hours passionately arguing about it or writing emails or what have you. Or, if they are told by their boss, "Hey, I think we've spent enough work time discussing issue X, let's drop it in favor of being productive", and they refuse to do so.

But, I do think that sometimes employers are the ones who make the mistake of using their power over people in order to influence which ideas are heard. While I am fully on the side of the employer's political views in this case, I do not believe that the bigoted views of the employees should be silenced by them. Or made more quiet. Or whatever :)
 
I am sorry, I did gloss over that part. I guess it was because I assumed you were addressing the context of the thread.

I did address the context of the thread. You simply glossed over the post. Thanks for trying to deflect your own failure, though.
 
Ballots are secret for a reason. A person can't be fired for how they voted. However, they can be fired for espousing those political beliefs in an unprofessional way when they should be working.

20/20 quarterbacking on my part here: Imo a better way for the employee to handle it would have been to keep their political views to herself and simply file a harassment complaint against the employer for continually asking how she voted.

I hope she sues this employer for everything they have so too set an example.
 
I did address the context of the thread. You simply glossed over the post. Thanks for trying to deflect your own failure, though.

Jallman, the OP is pretty clear about the sort of circumstance that we're discussing here. You are bringing in a really completely new circumstance, which as I said has nothing to do with what was happening here. Yes, I did read through your post too quickly, but I did so with the natural human tendency of thinking that you were staying on topic.

We weren't discussing whether unprofessional behaving people were disrupting the workplace with their views. We were discussing the situation where the story was that the employee was repeatedly asked their view and when it was finally revealed, the employee was fired for that view.

I do think that your topic is worth discussing, but don't be surprised that someone misses your attempt to change the subject on the first go 'round of reading your post. And don't be a jerk about it when they do.
 
Jallman, the OP is pretty clear about the sort of circumstance that we're discussing here.

Actually, it's not. It states that employees believed they were fired for their support of Prop 8. Also, it references WorldNet Daily as the source.

I am automatically suspicious of anything espoused by WND. I highly doubt there is a rash of firings over how someone voted...especially in California where it takes an act of congress to fire anyone.
 
Having faith in the general public and the common Man, it is my firm belief that when the average person is given information they perhaps did not already possess, that their views may adjust to reflect the new information.

The concepts you each possess are not without merit, and are in fact the case exactly, in the majority of States. After researching the issue I admit my error in assuming that the Federal government prevented private employers from political discrimination against their employees. It appears that this is a State issue.



This specific employer, residing in California, must comply with the following:



Terminating an employee for the expressed and sole reason of lawfully casting a vote in opposition to the employer’s political views is a clear violation of this statute.

I could be mistaken but I believe the question is do I believe someone should be able to be fired because of the way they voted and not what the law currently states about it.
To have a law that says an employer can't fire someone because of their stated political positions ignores the fact that that position could have a negative impact on the business. The employer may have a large amount of gay clientele and the employees statement that he voted for prop 8 could cause him to lose those clients and the revenue they generate. For a business based in San Francisco this is completely plausible. We only have one side of the story so we don't really know what the true situation is.

From the same article:
The Los Angeles Times reported the story of El Coyote, a coffee shop that became a target of protest after the manager's name was put on a blacklist for giving $100 to support Proposition 8. Mobs of protesters harassed El Coyote's customers, shouting "shame on you," until police in riot gear settled the crowd.

The customers, the Times reports, abandoned the once-thriving business, and now El Coyote's 89 employees, some of them openly homosexual, have had their hours cut and face layoffs if the customers don't return soon.

Advocates for homosexual marriage have even set up a website, AntiGayBlacklist.com, which lists hundreds of California residents, churches and businesses that donated money to the Proposition 8 campaign, urging sympathizers not to patronize those on the list.

If a person is going to go by the law in California, shouldn't the protesters and people that set up that website also be held liable for people losing their jobs?
 
Actually, it's not. It states that employees believed they were fired for their support of Prop 8. Also, it references WorldNet Daily as the source.

I am automatically suspicious of anything espoused by WND. I highly doubt there is a rash of firings over how someone voted...especially in California where it takes an act of congress to fire anyone.

I wouldn't be. The Gay lobby is strong in California.
Employers can and do fire people at a moments notice. They face a fine or court battle afterward but nothing keeps them from firing someone for whatever reason they want. In cases like this it often becomes a matter of which will be more feasible from a business standpoint. Losing the revenue from the employees actions/statements or keeping the revenue and paying the fine.
 
Actually, it's not. It states that employees believed they were fired for their support of Prop 8. Also, it references WorldNet Daily as the source.

I am automatically suspicious of anything espoused by WND. I highly doubt there is a rash of firings over how someone voted...especially in California where it takes an act of congress to fire anyone.

The OP article does talk about how the person was asked repeatedly for how they viewed and voted on the issue.

Now, while I didn't note the source, other than that Jamesrage was posting it, I didn't think it was really relevant to the question he was asking. He seemed to be asking if it ought to be the case that people are generally fired for their views and votes. He seemed to be using the article as an example of what he is concerned about. He didn't seem to be attempting to rally support for these particular people, but asking if this case, as presented, would be fair, almost hypothetically.

I think if you just look at the question used as the title of the thread, you'll see why I was thinking along those lines.

I agree with you, if I was being asked to rally for these people's cause, write letters to the company or to the local newspaper, boycott the company etc., I would definitely dig deeper, and WND would not be where I would be digging. You must have simply started thinking along those lines right away, and that's probably where our dialogue diverged, before it ever really began.

Your point about California is well taken. However, I know you must agree that Liberals can be at least marginally similar to Conservatives in how we (meaning me and my fellow liberals) attempt to enforce our beliefs. I can see firings of this specific sort occasionally attempted more in California than in, say, Idaho. In Idaho it would be the other way around, of course, the firings would be against those who voted for a Prop 8 style law, and in Idaho, you'd have way less a legal leg to stand on to protect yourself than in California.
 
I wouldn't be. The Gay lobby is strong in California.
Employers can and do fire people at a moments notice. They face a fine or court battle afterward but nothing keeps them from firing someone for whatever reason they want. In cases like this it often becomes a matter of which will be more feasible from a business standpoint. Losing the revenue from the employees actions/statements or keeping the revenue and paying the fine.

I don't see it as very close to reality. The gay lobby isn't so strong that it's sniping people's jobs and causing political pressure to close businesses down. And it was WND reporting the story. You might as well have pulled the story out of the Enquirer or Sun for all the truth you find in a WND article. Just sayin.
 
I could be mistaken but I believe the question is do I believe someone should be able to be fired because of the way they voted and not what the law currently states about it.

You're quite correct in your assessment here, allow me to be more precise.

Californians should not be fired for how they voted in an election because that's illegal.

I hope that's clearer.

To have a law that says an employer can't fire someone because of their stated political positions ignores the fact that that position could have a negative impact on the business. The employer may have a large amount of gay clientele and the employees statement that he voted for prop 8 could cause him to lose those clients and the revenue they generate. For a business based in San Francisco this is completely plausible. We only have one side of the story so we don't really know what the true situation is.

I think this is something different...related, but different. If an employer suffers a damage when someone expresses a political view, that employer might have a basis for a lawsuit depending on the specific facts of the situation.

That didn't happen here, though. Neither the employer nor any employee suffered a damage. Gays in California do currently have access to each and every single civil right, and may possess and share ALL marital benefits with a member of the same gender, without any exception at all, under Prop8.

California Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003

CDPRR Q&A

It can't even be argued that gay employees suffered a financial damage as a result of Prop8's passing.

If a person is going to go by the law in California, shouldn't the protesters and people that set up that website also be held liable for people losing their jobs?

It appears that those who crossed the line from legal protest and into harassment were dealt with appropriately. Boycotts are perfectly legal even when damaging per the 1st amendment.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it as very close to reality. The gay lobby isn't so strong that it's sniping people's jobs and causing political pressure to close businesses down. And it was WND reporting the story. You might as well have pulled the story out of the Enquirer or Sun for all the truth you find in a WND article. Just sayin.

Awsome avatar, btw :2wave:
 
I think its wrong but its a private business. They have every legal right to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reason. When businesses act like assholes like this and word gets around they get hurt real quick. Hell I can get fired for look at my District Manager the wrong way.

No you can't get fired for any reason.
There are laws that protect sexuality, race, etc. Privacy.

Now, if you sign a contract that ways that you can't disclose certain things and you violate that, or if you have to not offer personal opinions for fear of swaying public opinion, etc, then that is different.

Originally Posted by Phoenix
I wouldn't be. The Gay lobby is strong in California.
Employers can and do fire people at a moments notice. They face a fine or court battle afterward but nothing keeps them from firing someone for whatever reason they want. In cases like this it often becomes a matter of which will be more feasible from a business standpoint. Losing the revenue from the employees actions/statements or keeping the revenue and paying the fine.

I have worked in two of the gayest areas in CA. Laguna Beach and San Fran/Somona County.

I never heard of one person getting fired over making anti-gay comments or anything like that. I am extremely open, had many gay friends and such, and I would make comments sometimes, mostly jokes as we would go back and forth, but sometimes we would debate some serious aspect or law about homosexuality or whatnot, and I would voice an opinion different than what the "gays" were saying. All respectful on both sides, but disagreeing. I was never fired, and I even knew homophobes that completely argued with gays and were never fired. Bosses knew about these discussions, were sometimes present at after hour parties or at functions... I am not sure were you are getting your information, but it seems to contradict anything and everthing that I have ever experienced.
 
You're quite correct in your assessment here, allow me to be more precise.

Californians should not be fired for how they voted in an election because that's illegal.

I hope that's clearer.

I don't think that the law is constitutional to allow a person to remain employed by another person. Or for an employee to be able to sue an employer for being terminated. For any reason. Americans have assumed a "right to employment" that shouldn't exist. A person should have no more right to a particular job than they should a right to use your front yard for something. Employment is a contract between two individuals not a right. You yourself have stated in other threads that private entities can do whatever they wish even terminating for religious beliefs. So which is it?

Gays in California do currently have access to each and every single civil right, and may possess and share ALL marital benefits with a member of the same gender, without any exception at all, under Prop8.

California Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003

CDPRR Q&A

It can't even be argued that gay employees suffered a financial damage as a result of Prop8's passing.

This is incorrect. The obvious exception is Social Security (and survivor benefits) which is a federal entitlement and not bound by CA law. This is not really the point of this thread so it's for another time.

It appears that those who crossed the line from legal protest and into harassment were dealt with appropriately. Boycotts are perfectly legal even when damaging per the 1st amendment.

The question is even legal protesters are costing this man his employment. What makes their freedom of speech (protesting) more important that the employer in the other case's freedom of expression (termination)?
 
I have worked in two of the gayest areas in CA. Laguna Beach and San Fran/Somona County.

I never heard of one person getting fired over making anti-gay comments or anything like that. I am extremely open, had many gay friends and such, and I would make comments sometimes, mostly jokes as we would go back and forth, but sometimes we would debate some serious aspect or law about homosexuality or whatnot, and I would voice an opinion different than what the "gays" were saying. All respectful on both sides, but disagreeing. I was never fired, and I even knew homophobes that completely argued with gays and were never fired. Bosses knew about these discussions, were sometimes present at after hour parties or at functions... I am not sure were you are getting your information, but it seems to contradict anything and everthing that I have ever experienced.

While I appreciate your insight, Your personal experience don't make it the rule.
And maybe hetros that vote for prop 8 aren't being terminated in mass quantities. I was using the information in the article.
1) a woman was terminated fro voting for Prop 8
2) a "Black List" has been made for businesses and individuals that voted for Prop 8.
3) Protesters has decimated a business because the owner voted for Prop 8.

My only observation is that in a predominately gay area it wouldn't surprise me if a significant amount of people were terminated for their vote.
 
I don't think that the law is constitutional to allow a person to remain employed by another person. Or for an employee to be able to sue an employer for being terminated. For any reason. Americans have assumed a "right to employment" that shouldn't exist. A person should have no more right to a particular job than they should a right to use your front yard for something. Employment is a contract between two individuals not a right. You yourself have stated in other threads that private entities can do whatever they wish even terminating for religious beliefs. So which is it?

It's a right to not be discriminated against, not a right to employment.

Please redress your argument accordingly.
 
It's a right to not be discriminated against, not a right to employment.

Please redress your argument accordingly.

"Should you be fired" = should you be employed
If you are going to state that a person should not be allowed by law to be terminated, you are granting them the right to that employment.
I have said before and will state it again,

I believe an employer should be able to terminate an employee for any reason.

A person or company should be able to openly discriminate if they so chose without fear of the government.
I notice you skipped over addressing why you believe a person can be terminated for their religious beliefs but not for their vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom