How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[Al B. Sure!]

liberal *******s



He was a professor and worked as CFO of a company called Vante Medical Devices. They released a statement:

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.


The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.


We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees.”

[giblets]

I didn't watch the video, but I'm guessing you take comfort in the fact that you're not the only person who's lost a job by saying something stupid.

[Al B. Sure!]

Maybe people can protest Vante and the University of Arizona now


The University of Arizona took down his faculty page.


But come on. An executive fired for harassing a minimum wage worker

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know how it became common knowledge. I guess some people take an interest in said hate groups.

Exodus is a hate group? If someone wants to overcome their unwanted desires, I don't see the problem. It's a free country.

[Flubber]

Okay. So what is your opinion on employers perusing Facebook to snoop in applicants' Facebook walls? Should applicants be rejected based on content in their Facebook that is wholly irrelevant to the job they applied for?

I want to know if that constitutes as punishment for exercising free speech.


(yeah, I know there are privacy settings on FB, but for sake of argument, this is about FB pages that are public)

On chickFila my view was simple.. Their CEO is entitled to his opinionand as long as he doesn't break any laws that's free speech and shouldn't bring any legal sanctions. But anyone hearing the view and disagreeing is again free to say so and also free to boycott the businesses products. People can decide the businesses they patronize for completely subjective reasons. What you cannot do is exercise an administrative power to punish people for legal speech.


Facebook? Anything that is completely public is fair game. If a prospect employer goes to check someone out and finds out about their drug habit or that they enjoy slacking off at work or whatever, a potential employer will use all the information they find. Potential employers reject people for all sorts of reasons including "fit".

If a potential employer rejected someone because they discovered they are gay I find that objectionable and in Canada it would be illegal discrimination but just try to prove that's the reason. It's like the obviously pregnant woman.... They never mention the pregnancy even if it actually is a factor.


My distinction in all this is that the potential employer has no particular duty to the potential employees other than not to break any laws. It's a competition ( and usually there are several qualified people) and if Facebook stuff convinces someone the person is incompatible, then they are free to make that judgement. Again they judge you on everything including on how polite you are to reception so if you post something publicly then a job applicant must be willing to have that stuff as part their job application materials. I see no problem with an employer seeing how an applicant is portraying themselves publicly.


An existing employee? Depending on their role i might never look unless advised of an issue that involved the employer. Obviously anyone with a high profile might require greater scrutiny. ( a First Nations spokesman or negotiator for instance must know tht ANYTHING they write reflects on their employer)

[MrFun]

Flubber, so since CFA executive, Cathy, made his bigoted opinion public, it is fair game then, according to what you've said, right? City mayors do not have any particular duty to companies that want to locate a branch in said cities.

[MrFun]

You don't see how government-imposed sanctions takes away Mr. Cathy's free speech rights?

If the government fines you for what you say, do you think that's not a violation of free speech rights, either? In both cases, the government is imposing a punishment.

For god's sake, CFA will do just fine with only two or three cities denying them a location for business.

[MrFun]

Then you're a ****ing idiot.

Really? Would you be this angry in the following scenario:

A Republican employer interviews a potential employee applicant who happens to be Democrat. The interview went very well; the employer did not quite promise to hire the applicant, but expressed interest and asked the applicant to come back for a second interview. The Republican employer finds out on the applicant's Facebook wall that he is a Democrat, so the employer calls up the applicant and to the applicant's confusion, tells him "we found someone else," because the employer has an unofficial policy in not hiring people who are Democratic.

[MrFun]

While we're talking more broadly about free speech and what its limitations should be or not be, here's an article about US Congress denying Westboro Baptist Church their right to free speech.

[Wiglaf]

[Wiglaf]

Flubber, so since CFA executive, Cathy, made his bigoted opinion public, it is fair game then, according to what you've said, right? City mayors do not have any particular duty to companies that want to locate a branch in said cities.

I still don't see how mayors wanting to prevent CFA restaurants locating in their cities takes away CFA executives' free speech

It doesn't "take away" their free speech, in the sense that it doesn't prohibit them from speaking entirely, but it does discriminate on the basis of their speech for no legitimate purpose other than "we don't like the speech," which is the most contemptible and scrutinized justification possible.

Really? Would you be this angry in the following scenario:

A Republican employer interviews a potential employee applicant who happens to be Democrat. The interview went very well; the employer did not quite promise to hire the applicant, but expressed interest and asked the applicant to come back for a second interview. The Republican employer finds out on the applicant's Facebook wall that he is a Democrat, so the employer calls up the applicant and to the applicant's confusion, tells him "we found someone else," because the employer has an unofficial policy in not hiring people who are Democratic.

I wouldn't be angry, because I did this all the time, as does every Republican on the Hill for obvious and legitimate reasons. You walk into my office and I find out you're a Democrat and I might actually kill you. I think you need to look up what a "protected class" is and revisit this thread.

[Kidlicious]

Actually that's pretty creepy. I'd probably leave.

[Wiglaf]

I don't think it's creepy at all. When three mayors of major cities threaten to unconstitutionally lock a business out because of its owner's personal view on gay marriage, customers should take every opportunity they get to remind them we live in America and are not fascists.

[giblets]

Too bad anti-fascism is getting bundled in with relegating gays to second-class status.

[The Mad Monk]

While we're talking more broadly about free speech and what its limitations should be or not be, here's an article about US Congress denying Westboro Baptist Church their right to free speech.

Already covered. I even put Funeral Picketing in the title.