Try to explain this to the rabid mob. Enjoy your rational discussion.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Slippery slope?

Eh, when I'm on the jobsite and I gotta walk up a slippery slope, ya don't see me complainin' about it, I just put on some shoes with better traction and get my keister up that slope!

But what do I know?

what slippery slope?

year 2015: i prefer a higher cheese to sauce ratio on my pizza. FIRED

simplifying it to "firing based on opinions" completely minimizes the real issue here.

You're reading too much into "slippery slope". My point was that as more companies back down to temporary public outrage, others will follow. It's getting to a point where some asshole that writes a blog can get you fired based on an opinion said outside the job.

Good point. But there's not enough sauce on pizzas these days and I won't have you obfuscating the issue so you can defend that nazi gun enthoozjest

[deleted]

Zing

What Anthony did on Twitter could land you in jail in Britain, haha.

[deleted]

Fuck Britain and fuck being fired for speaking your mind.

People in America have it backwards anyway by enshrining it in law and thinking that protects it. All laws can be changed, taken away, ignored, bought off, rationalized around. Every right that you hold dear from your right to free speech to your right to life can be taken away from you by somebody smarter, more powerful, more numerous or just luckier than you. Some you might not have to fight for in your life time, but someone will.

Free speech is a principal that needs to be lived by everybody. Responding with "A company can do what it likes" is a weak response. If your FIRST AMENDMENT is free speech, then no, companies shouldn't be allowed to do what they like. There are plenty of reasons companies can't fire you for. Why isn't your FIRST amendment one of them? People need to be protected from online lynch mobs, but nobody is willing to stand up to them, because free speech goes out the window when it's somebody you don't like, or in the name of capitalism, or some other ridiculous reason.

The 1st Amendment was written without knowledge of social media, or online mobs, and professional offense takers. It was written by great men, who's fault was they never predicted the online world, where vast swarms of people can be quickly gathered to virtually stone people for blasphemy. This generation's blasphemy is racism, sexism and homophobia, and the people lining up to throw stone are bloggers, tweeters and the readers of click bait websites. I've seen enough dirty skeletons in these people's closets to know that they're going to be on the receiving end of a virtual stoning one day themselves.

Is capitalism your highest value? Or is free speech? Which is more important? Capitalism is winning.

Indeed. You can't be fired for your religious beliefs, and that's directly a result of the enshrinement of the "free exercise" of religion in the First Amendment. Why doesn't the same thing apply to freedom of speech? Both have equal footing in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is the other option? Have a government agency that prevents private companies from firing their employees for saying shit? There is no way around this sort of thing happening in a free market system.

It's the FIRST Amendment. If that doesn't take priority over capitalism the system is broken.

The first amendment says the government can't make a law prohibiting free speech. You can't be thrown in jail for speech. The first amendment doesn't prevent private businesses from firing an employee for saying shit if they think it reflects poorly on the company. These are 2 different issues.

The 1st amendment refers to "freedom of speech" as if it exists independently of the Constitution (i.e., the Constitution does not grant freedom of speech to you — you always had it). It's not called a "right" in that document, but the implication of the first amendment is that if the oh-so-powerful government is not allowed to infringe freedom of speech, then entities of lesser power shouldn't either.

How the hell does the freedom of speech exist independent of the document that decreed it?

It does not decree it. Here's the full text. It refers to freedom of speech as if it exists independently of the document:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law.... that's about as far as you need to go.

And yet you assholes are the ones who tried to fucking white knight like bitches when opie jumped on that homeless guys cake