Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[Emily Lake]

One would hope that if an employee committed a crime, the owner would fire them regardless of that person's politics or beliefs. And preferably support whoever pressed charges as a witness.

Your last point makes sense but some may wait until the trial finishes.

Agreed. It would certainly depend on the type of crime, when and where it was committed, and exactly how much direct knowledge the employer has. I mean, if a server in a restaurant were charged with assault because of a bar fight, the employer may decide that's irrelevant to their ability to take plates to tables. On the other hand, if the cashier at a shop were charged with stealing from the store, one would assume that a reasonable employer would fire them on the spot. Then there's middle areas... If an accountant is accused of credit fraud, and employer might opt of administrative leave with employment being determined once the trial has concluded. There's a whole lot of fuzz in there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Such a shiny pedestal. And so high. Might explain why you can't see much.

You appear to have a lot of ad hominems, but not much substance. Would you care to keep the conversation on topic rather than engaging in insults?

Well, there are only so many ways to say that Nazis and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections that say a Nazi civil rights sympathizer has.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your line of reasoning that a small family owned business preparing and serving food to the public including minorities has no freedom to decide if hiring Nazis is too risky for the business is absurd.

This is a strawman. I've said nothing of the sort, nor is that a remotely reasonable inference from anything I've said. You're having an imaginary argument.

Nazis believe in criminal behavior.

First off, that's a pointlessly sophomoric statement. Everyone believes in criminal behavior - some behavior is criminal. Murder is criminal. I believe that murder happens, therefore I believe in criminal behavior. This is undoubtedly poor wording, but it's fairly representative of a lot of your argument.

Secondly, So what? Pot smokers believe in criminal behavior too. So do euthanasia advocates. So do people who think that Nazis should be punched on sight.

I'll circle back to the point I've made over and over, and that you seem unable to accept: What you are advocating for is the pre-emptive punishment of a group of people, not based on what they have done or do, but because of what they believe. You are advocating that some beliefs are sufficient for you to rationalize violence, coercion, and the infringement of their rights.

-----

If you knew someone was a pedophile and you had the ability to hire them to a daycare, would you?

If I KNEW someone was a pedophile, I'd report them to the fucking police! Your premise, your entire hypothetical is seriously absurd. You're creating ridiculous scenarios. It seems as if you're trying to lead me into a trap.

I personally would NOT hire someone that I KNEW to be a bigot of any sort, or a criminal whose crimes have relevance to the job. But there's a world of difference between me following my judgement and me insisting that someone else does not have the option to hire whomever they wish to. You're arguing that some people who are not criminals should be legally disallowed from working in certain types of jobs without question, based on what they believe. The fact that I wouldn't personally hire them does not in any way imply that they shouldn't legally be allowed to have certain jobs. These aren't even remotely the same things.

Also, it pays to point out to you yet again because you seem to be jumping all over the point, you do not have a constitutional right to get any job you want.

This is ridiculous. I have neither claimed nor implied that anyone has a right to get any job they want. I don't even have words for how completely ridiculous this particular strawman is. Maybe 'strawclown' would be a better term.

 

[Emily Lake]

Such a shiny pedestal. And so high. Might explain why you can't see much.

You appear to have a lot of ad hominems, but not much substance. Would you care to keep the conversation on topic rather than engaging in insults?

Well, there are only so many ways to say that Nazis and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections that say a Nazi civil rights sympathizer has.

You're right. There are only so many ways to say that [insert belief system you disapprove of] and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections of other citizens.

Can you explain how your argument, which essentially boils down to "They're evil, I tell ya!" can be limited only to the people that you agree are evil enough to be deprived of the protections that all citizens are entitled to? Which groups that other people claim are self-evidently evil will you rotect? Where are you going to draw the line, and how excatly are you going to ensure that the line never shifts?

BEcause the same fucking argument that you're making has in the past been applied to homosexuals. It's been applied to all non-christians. It was applied to non-Catholics. It was used to justify the fucking crusades!

And in case you're not picking up on this - it was used to justify the goddamned holocaust itself!

"They're evil therefore it's okay to do bad things to them" is not a new argument. You're simply rationalizing it so you feel better about being a liberal who is arguing for depriving a group of your fellow citizens of their rights.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I personally would NOT hire someone that I KNEW to be a bigot of any sort...

Then why are you engaging in all your pointless arguments after saying it was illegal to politically discriminate against someone? Did you change your mind after you found out you were wrong that Nazis only discriminated against Jews? What the heck are you trying to do here? Wow, your flip-flop wasted so much of my time, I am putting you on ignore.

 

[Emily Lake]

I personally would NOT hire someone that I KNEW to be a bigot of any sort...

Then why are you engaging in all your pointless arguments after saying it was illegal to politically discriminate against someone? Did you change your mind after you found out you were wrong that Nazis only discriminated against Jews? What the heck are you trying to do here? Wow, your flip-flop wasted so much of my time, I am putting you on ignore.

Jesus christ. You appear to have completely ignored the remainder of my post. Let's try it again, shall we?

But there's a world of difference between me following my judgement and me insisting that someone else does not have the option to hire whomever they wish to. You're arguing that some people who are not criminals should be legally disallowed from working in certain types of jobs without question, based on what they believe. The fact that I wouldn't personally hire them does not in any way imply that they shouldn't legally be allowed to have certain jobs. These aren't even remotely the same things.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Emily Lake, I already told you to stop ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold. I do not support a law with a blanket ban on hiring Nazis. I already wrote that several times and I already told you to stop ascribing to me beliefs I do not hold. You came into this thread late, guns blazing, clearly thinking that people on here have opinions they don't have. Understand people's positions before responding. Also, educate yourself on discrimination laws and the Holocaust. I suggest at this point you do not respond or ascribe any more beliefs to me incorrectly. It's now way beyond irrational for me to engage you in your continuous counter-factual and misunderstandings of my posts. Back to ignore until things cool down.

 

[Hermit]

Nazis believe in criminal behavior.

So what? Pot smokers believe in criminal behavior too. So do euthanasia advocates. So do people who think that Nazis should be punched on sight.

Are you really equating pot smoking,euthanasia and punching a Nazi on sight with white supremacy and all that implies, or is this just some rhetorical ploy to win the internet?

From what I've read I gather the owner knew his employee was a Nazi for quite some time, so he saw no problem having a Nazi working for him until the media got involved, generating ill will toward the restaurant among the public. Are you suggesting the restaurant owner has no right to tell an employee: "You're fired because your employment status here has a negative impact on the size of my business's revenue."?

 

[laughing dog]

I personally would NOT hire someone that I KNEW to be a bigot of any sort...

Then why are you engaging in all your pointless arguments after saying it was illegal to politically discriminate against someone? Did you change your mind after you found out you were wrong that Nazis only discriminated against Jews? What the heck are you trying to do here? Wow, your flip-flop wasted so much of my time, I am putting you on ignore.

Jesus christ. You appear to have completely ignored the remainder of my post. Let's try it again, shall we?

But there's a world of difference between me following my judgement and me insisting that someone else does not have the option to hire whomever they wish to. You're arguing that some people who are not criminals should be legally disallowed from working in certain types of jobs without question, based on what they believe. The fact that I wouldn't personally hire them does not in any way imply that they shouldn't legally be allowed to have certain jobs. These aren't even remotely the same things.

Where has anyone here proposed that Nazis should be legally disallowed from working at any jobs. The issue is whether an employer is right to fire a Nazi if the employer chooses to do so.

Apparently, you have been cluttering up this thread with word salads based on your straw man interpretation of people's posts.

 

[Hermit]

Well, there are only so many ways to say that Nazis and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections that say a Nazi civil rights sympathizer has.

You're right. There are only so many ways to say that [insert belief system you disapprove of] and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections of other citizens.

Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights comes to mind. Belief systems - and people who hold them - that are opposed to it by word and/or deed don't deserve the protections of other citizens. I think the US constitution contains similarly applicable text.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, there are only so many ways to say that Nazis and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections that say a Nazi civil rights sympathizer has.

You're right. There are only so many ways to say that [insert belief system you disapprove of] and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections of other citizens.

Can you explain how your argument, which essentially boils down to "They're evil, I tell ya!" can be limited only to the people that you agree are evil enough to be deprived of the protections that all citizens are entitled to? Which groups that other people claim are self-evidently evil will you rotect? Where are you going to draw the line, and how excatly are you going to ensure that the line never shifts?

BEcause the same fucking argument that you're making has in the past been applied to homosexuals. It's been applied to all non-christians. It was applied to non-Catholics. It was used to justify the fucking crusades!

And in case you're not picking up on this - it was used to justify the goddamned holocaust itself!

"They're evil therefore it's okay to do bad things to them" is not a new argument. You're simply rationalizing it so you feel better about being a liberal who is arguing for depriving a group of your fellow citizens of their rights.

Nazis are evil. It really is that simple. Your retort is, 'Well, I can say that about Gays.'. That doesn't refute the truth that Nazis are evil. You could disagree, but it would be a bad position for you to hold on your pedestal. Swatizkas are heavy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, there are only so many ways to say that Nazis and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections that say a Nazi civil rights sympathizer has.

You're right. There are only so many ways to say that [insert belief system you disapprove of] and their despicable beliefs don't deserve the protections of other citizens.

Can you explain how your argument, which essentially boils down to "They're evil, I tell ya!" can be limited only to the people that you agree are evil enough to be deprived of the protections that all citizens are entitled to? Which groups that other people claim are self-evidently evil will you rotect? Where are you going to draw the line, and how excatly are you going to ensure that the line never shifts?

BEcause the same fucking argument that you're making has in the past been applied to homosexuals. It's been applied to all non-christians. It was applied to non-Catholics. It was used to justify the fucking crusades!

And in case you're not picking up on this - it was used to justify the goddamned holocaust itself!

"They're evil therefore it's okay to do bad things to them" is not a new argument. You're simply rationalizing it so you feel better about being a liberal who is arguing for depriving a group of your fellow citizens of their rights.

Nazis are evil. It really is that simple. Your retort is, 'Well, I can say that about Gays.'. That doesn't refute the truth that Nazis are evil. You could disagree, but it would be a bad position for you to hold on your pedestal. Swatizkas are heavy.

I think a better comparison is pedophiles. Unlike Emily Lake, I will not claim that a pedophile is automatically a criminal and someone should automatically call the police on them. They probably regularly have criminal thoughts like a Nazi does. Neither one should be hired in certain kinds of jobs. A Nazi shouldn't be hired to be a lifeguard in a black community and a pedophile shouldn't be hired in a daycare center.

 

[whichphilosophy]

One would hope that if an employee committed a crime, the owner would fire them regardless of that person's politics or beliefs. And preferably support whoever pressed charges as a witness.

Your last point makes sense but some may wait until the trial finishes.

Agreed. It would certainly depend on the type of crime, when and where it was committed, and exactly how much direct knowledge the employer has. I mean, if a server in a restaurant were charged with assault because of a bar fight, the employer may decide that's irrelevant to their ability to take plates to tables. On the other hand, if the cashier at a shop were charged with stealing from the store, one would assume that a reasonable employer would fire them on the spot. Then there's middle areas... If an accountant is accused of credit fraud, and employer might opt of administrative leave with employment being determined once the trial has concluded. There's a whole lot of fuzz in there.

What you say makes sense. Sacking someone solely because of their political mentality leads to a widening slippery slope.

 

[rousseau]

If someone is openly hostile to entire races of people, and they work with people of that race, then firing them is justified because they can no longer be an effective employee. It's not about their political views, it's about their political views creating a toxic work environment.

If I started a blog called 'women are the worst programmers' and shared it with all of the female programmers on my team, how do you think that would affect morale if my company said 'well, it's just his opinion?'. Nope, these women would no longer want to work with me and our team's productivity would literally be hit.

In the same way, if you come out as hating entire races of people in a nationally distributed newspaper, then you don't get the privilege of working with people who disagree with you. It's not a political viewpoint, it's hatred.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If someone is openly hostile to entire races of people, and they work with people of that race, then firing them is justified because they can no longer be an effective employee. It's not about their political views, it's about their political views creating a toxic work environment.

If I started a blog called 'women are the worst programmers' and shared it with all of the female programmers on my team, how do you think that would affect morale if my company said 'well, it's just his opinion?'. Nope, these women would no longer want to work with me and our team's productivity would literally be hit.

In the same way, if you come out as hating entire races of people in a nationally distributed newspaper, then you don't get the privilege of working with people who disagree with you. It's not a political viewpoint, it's hatred.

By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

 

[laughing dog]

If someone is openly hostile to entire races of people, and they work with people of that race, then firing them is justified because they can no longer be an effective employee. It's not about their political views, it's about their political views creating a toxic work environment.

If I started a blog called 'women are the worst programmers' and shared it with all of the female programmers on my team, how do you think that would affect morale if my company said 'well, it's just his opinion?'. Nope, these women would no longer want to work with me and our team's productivity would literally be hit.

In the same way, if you come out as hating entire races of people in a nationally distributed newspaper, then you don't get the privilege of working with people who disagree with you. It's not a political viewpoint, it's hatred.

By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

Even if rousseau were a Nazi? What if that belief was part of Naziism?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If someone is openly hostile to entire races of people, and they work with people of that race, then firing them is justified because they can no longer be an effective employee. It's not about their political views, it's about their political views creating a toxic work environment.

If I started a blog called 'women are the worst programmers' and shared it with all of the female programmers on my team, how do you think that would affect morale if my company said 'well, it's just his opinion?'. Nope, these women would no longer want to work with me and our team's productivity would literally be hit.

In the same way, if you come out as hating entire races of people in a nationally distributed newspaper, then you don't get the privilege of working with people who disagree with you. It's not a political viewpoint, it's hatred.

By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

Even if rousseau were a Nazi? What if that belief was part of Naziism?

The crime is doing, not being.

 

[laughing dog]

Even if rousseau were a Nazi? What if that belief was part of Naziism?

The crime is doing, not being.

You mean it is not okay for firing someone who believes in Naziism, but it is okay for fire someone who utters something that Nazis believe in?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If someone is openly hostile to entire races of people, and they work with people of that race, then firing them is justified because they can no longer be an effective employee. It's not about their political views, it's about their political views creating a toxic work environment.

If I started a blog called 'women are the worst programmers' and shared it with all of the female programmers on my team, how do you think that would affect morale if my company said 'well, it's just his opinion?'. Nope, these women would no longer want to work with me and our team's productivity would literally be hit.

In the same way, if you come out as hating entire races of people in a nationally distributed newspaper, then you don't get the privilege of working with people who disagree with you. It's not a political viewpoint, it's hatred.

By way of conduct at work as you mentioned could be a reason for dismissal.

Even if rousseau were a Nazi? What if that belief was part of Naziism?

It's the conduct that matters.

 

[laughing dog]

Even if rousseau were a Nazi? What if that belief was part of Naziism?

It's the conduct that matters.

Let me get this straight - firing a Nazi because he is a nazi is a no-no because political beliefs are not relevant but firing a Nazi for sharing those irrelevant political beliefs is okay. Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.