• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should you be fired for how you voted in a election or ballot issue?

I figure this is pretty much a straight up yes or no poll question.So there will be no "maybe/I do not know" options


Voted for Prop 8? You're fired
Protests following the passage of California's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, made news headlines, but the Pacific Justice Institute reports a growing number of cases where those opposed to the ballot measure have taken out their anger more quietly: by harassing – and even firing – employees who voted for it.

PJI, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in religious freedom, claims to be representing a San Francisco woman who was fired for voting for Proposition 8, but whose name remains confidential to protect her privacy and legal case.

"Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage," states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group's website. "These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable."

PJI also claims to be advising several others seeking settlements after they too were fired for supporting Proposition 8.

"Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated case," asserts a recent PJI statement.

Kevin Snider, chief counsel for PJI, told WND of a worker at a financial company who was asked before the November election how he would vote on the issue of homosexual marriage. The employee gave an evasive answer. Following the election, the employee was asked repeatedly how he voted.

When it was learned the employee had voted in favor of Proposition 8, he was written up for discrimination, Snider reports, and fired within a couple of days.

WND reported earlier of a pair of radio hosts who were fired, they believe, because they questioned on air a local politician's call to boycott businesses that supported Prop. 8.

"I voiced my opinion," radio host Marshall Gilbert told WND. "I voted yes on Prop. 8, and I was fired over that."
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Actually, not for just ANY old reason - otherwise we'd see more people being fired for gender, sexual orientation, religion, and political orientation, which is currently against the law IIRC.
 
jamesrage,

I didn't know you were North Korean!

I always thought you were an American.

Boy, was I wrong!
 
Whats with your trolling as of late?
What's "trolling" about inferring the thread question is something you would expect in North Korea, not the United States of America?
 
Actually, not for just ANY old reason - otherwise we'd see more people being fired for gender, sexual orientation, religion, and political orientation, which is currently against the law IIRC.

Well you have a point there but there is nothing saying you have the right to work at a specific place. As I said before businesses that do these kind of dickish moves get hurt by just word of mouth alone. While they have the right to be dickish, the social ostracism alone would "force" the business to change their tune via market forces NOT through government guns.
 
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 such right exists.

"At will" employment has its definitions and limits, and political lean is not grounds to terminate.
 
Hey chevydriver1123,

Are you going to answer my question?

Or are you just going to be satisfied with your "drive-by-flaming"?
 
No such right exists.

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

That is different in every state.
Most commonly age, race, sex, religion, national origin, color, disability, or pregnancy, OSHA, and leave due to military service as protected.

I haven't seen a protection for political affiliation. A valid business reason may exist to terminate an employee that votes a certain way or the other.

However since, "I'm sorry we are going in a different direction" isn't protected the rest are moot.

For the record, I agree with Chevy, They SHOULD be able to hire and fire for WHATEVER reason they want.
 
Hey chevydriver1123,

Are you going to answer my question?

Or are you just going to be satisfied with your "drive-by-flaming"?

Moderator's Warning:
Cut it out, Billo.
 
If you were working for McCain and voted for Obama you should get fired I think lol.
 
Kevin Snider, chief counsel for PJI, told WND of a worker at a financial company who was asked before the November election how he would vote on the issue of homosexual marriage. The employee gave an evasive answer. Following the election, the employee was asked repeatedly how he voted.

When it was learned the employee had voted in favor of Proposition 8, he was written up for discrimination, Snider reports, and fired within a couple of days.

No they shouldn't be fired for that. Their votes were disgusting and frankly I have very little sympathy for them, but nevertheless I don't think people should be fired for their political beliefs, especially when they are coerced into divulging them.

jamesrage said:
WND reported earlier of a pair of radio hosts who were fired, they believe, because they questioned on air a local politician's call to boycott businesses that supported Prop. 8.

"I voiced my opinion," radio host Marshall Gilbert told WND. "I voted yes on Prop. 8, and I was fired over that."

That's different than the previous case. The employees in this question were in mass media and voluntarily divulged their opinions on the air, and that could reasonably affect their job performance. I don't mind that the radio guys were fired. That's different than some office worker being pressured into admitting his personal political views which have no relevance to his job.
 
Last edited:
What's "trolling" about inferring the thread question is something you would expect in North Korea, not the United States of America?

As far as I know the North Koreans do not have any right to vote. So how this thread a valid comparison? Where you being sarcastic?
 
Last edited:
No such right exists.

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

Am I just misreading what you have written Jerry?

AFAIK "At Will" employment allows employers to fire anyone for any cause other then those protected by Federal and State job discrimination laws or if you've complained about illegal activity, about discrimination or harassment, or about health and safety violations in the workplace.

Also you can't be fired for exercising a variety of other legal rights, including the right to take family and medical leave, to take leave to serve in the military, or to take time off work to vote or serve on a jury.

ISTM "At Will" employment gives a great deal of latitude to employers to terminate and if they want to terminate because you disagree with them politically and exercise that disagreement through your vote it's totally legal as long as they have not prohibited you from exercising that right.
 
Anyone who voted for Gearge W. should be killed, and exiled to Texas.

Is this one of those tricky brain teasers, Like "If a plane crashes on the border of OK and TX, where do you bury the survivors?"
 
I think political leanings should be protected, with some exceptions such as Kandahar has advocated and possibly others. I think it is important for a healthy democracy for people to be able to be open and to discuss their political views, althought in the workplace this should kept to a reasonable amount (just as other conversation ought to be).

I have faith that with open and free dialogue, the position represented by Prop 8 will come to be understood as the bigoted position that it is.
 
I think political leanings should be protected, with some exceptions such as Kandahar has advocated and possibly others. I think it is important for a healthy democracy for people to be able to be open and to discuss their political views, althought in the workplace this should kept to a reasonable amount (just as other conversation ought to be).

I have faith that with open and free dialog, the position represented by Prop 8 will come to be understood as the bigoted position that it is.

Your opinion, not fact..

If anyone asks me how I voted, I'd say "angryly"..The campaign/voting process needs reform so badly..

If this was asked, "who did you vote for ?" I'd say, NOYFB !

Being fired for voting a certain way is wrong, and I am positive , illegal..

If anyone is fired, it should be those who ask questions that are private or illegal.
And North Korea has nothing to do with this..
 
Am I just misreading what you have written Jerry?

AFAIK "At Will" employment allows employers to fire anyone for any cause other then those protected by Federal and State job discrimination laws or if you've complained about illegal activity, about discrimination or harassment, or about health and safety violations in the workplace.

Also you can't be fired for exercising a variety of other legal rights, including the right to take family and medical leave, to take leave to serve in the military, or to take time off work to vote or serve on a jury.

ISTM "At Will" employment gives a great deal of latitude to employers to terminate and if they want to terminate because you disagree with them politically and exercise that disagreement through your vote it's totally legal as long as they have not prohibited you from exercising that right.

It's this simple:

Even assuming that voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, it didn't happen on-the-job, on-the-clock, or on company property. Therefore the employer has no authority to terminate.

Even assuming that voting against gay marriage is discrimination, Americans have the basic Civil right to vote their conscience free from harassment or fear or recourse from or by any party.

Even assuming that voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, American's have the basic civil right to keep their vote private and Americans have the basic civil right to be free from harassment in the workplace.

If voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, then voting against gay-marriage it is illegal. If an option on the ballot is illegal, the initiative is a fraud and the state is liable to the People and the Federal government.

Either the state has committed a crime or the employer has committed a crime.

Who do you think the courts will side with?
 
It's this simple:

Even assuming that voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, it didn't happen on-the-job, on-the-clock, or on company property. Therefore the employer has no authority to terminate.

The employer has every and the only authority to terminate someone. The fact that something didn't happen on the job doesn't mean it can't be used to make a determination to terminate. If a person is arrested for theft, for example, misses no time off work and didn't steal from the company, a person could be fired for it.

Even assuming that voting against gay marriage is discrimination, Americans have the basic Civil right to vote their conscience free from harassment or fear or recourse from or by any party.

This is just not true.
Free from harassment or fear or recourse by the government I would agree with. To claim anything else would put one person's right before another's.
Even assuming that voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, American's have the basic civil right to keep their vote private and Americans have the basic civil right to be free from harassment in the workplace.

The problem here is that the person DIDN'T keep their vote private. They should have kept their mouth shut and explained to the people that he wasn't comfortable talking about politics at his job.
Or if he knew it was a big issue, he shoulda lied and told them he voted against it.
 
It's this simple:

Even assuming that voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, it didn't happen on-the-job, on-the-clock, or on company property. Therefore the employer has no authority to terminate.

Even assuming that voting against gay marriage is discrimination, Americans have the basic Civil right to vote their conscience free from harassment or fear or recourse from or by any party.

Even assuming that voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, American's have the basic civil right to keep their vote private and Americans have the basic civil right to be free from harassment in the workplace.

If voting against gay-marriage is discrimination, then voting against gay-marriage it is illegal. If an option on the ballot is illegal, the initiative is a fraud and the state is liable to the People and the Federal government.

Either the state has committed a crime or the employer has committed a crime.

Who do you think the courts will side with?

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.
 
Last edited:
The employer has every and the only authority to terminate someone. The fact that something didn't happen on the job doesn't mean it can't be used to make a determination to terminate. If a person is arrested for theft, for example, misses no time off work and didn't steal from the company, a person could be fired for it.

This is just not true.
Free from harassment or fear or recourse by the government I would agree with. To claim anything else would put one person's right before another's.

The problem here is that the person DIDN'T keep their vote private. They should have kept their mouth shut and explained to the people that he wasn't comfortable talking about politics at his job.
Or if he knew it was a big issue, he shoulda lied and told them he voted against it.

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.

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.

Workplace Fairness - Retaliation: Political Activity
Unlike many state and federal employees, most employees in America working for private employers do not have any legal protection against discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or activity.

<snip>

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

CA Codes (lab:1101-1106)

1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule,
regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or
participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public
office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the
political activities or affiliations of employees.


1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or
influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge
or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or
following any particular course or line of political action or
political activity.


<snip>

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.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those thing I have to not only say no to, but F**K no. I don't agree with the way these people vote , but job dependency on how you vote radically undermines the democratic process.
 
Back
Top Bottom