It's not a mind set. In many ( 26 I believe) states it is still the law. And more are joining as At Will states.

It is here in Missouri putting small business owners at risk of suffering a Federal DOJ with a cause.

A business, particularly a proprietary one, IS a person's PROPERTY. Not the property of the State.

However,

Universities are public and subject to the whims of current prejudice. So, if you have a prejudice, and it conflicts with the prejudice de'Jour' then don't expect fair treatment from them when getting educated or hired.

You might look up the Constitution again and see where it says the Federal Government has the right, or obligation, to modify the social norms and behavior of citizens in any state.

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

What you don't know would fill volumes.
Peruse any of the "gay employment discrimination" threads talking about laws preventing it. They're filled with people making those claims.

And as far as "no one here...", that's exactly the point of my observation on hypocrisy.



The 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to all 50 states.
But I guess since that protects Christians from discrimination, it's often ignored as such by the right...



If you have a prejudice and it violates University policy is what you should have said.


And yet, that's not what happened at all...

You are free to consider "norms" per your definition.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Is your race a "view that is unpopular"?
Is your sex a "view that is unpopular"?
Is your color a "view that is unpopular"?
Is your national origin a "view that is unpopular"?

The answer to all the above is no.
The only one that has any relation with "opinion" is religion.
And Employment Civil Rights protection has never been used to protect "unpopular" opinions. And when religion has been attempted as a justification for the unpopular opinion (e.g. when religion has been attempted to justify racism), the attempt was rejected as religion is not an excuse to violate the law.


I really hate hypothetical arguments where you dream up a scenario in your own head and use it to justify outrage.
YOU JUST MADE UP a scenario in your head and imagined other people's responses, criticizing them for what YOU IMAGINED.

For comparison.
Suppose John and Jill were married.
Jill went to sleep and dreamed that John cheated on her.
Jill woke up mad and blamed John for her dream.

Most rational people would recognize that as b.s.
But that's exactly what you just did...


The list of protected items is legislated. Voted into being.
Your prejudice is not on that list.
Gays fought to have sexual orientation added to that list, in the few places where it has been added.

You are more than free to fight for your own addition to that legislation.
Until you do, you whining about what's not there is just abjectly stupid.


And you're back to imagining other people's positions.
From my position, what you just said is absolute b.s.
I don't expect you to have the honesty to admit that because you prefer your imagination to reality.


Muslims are not exempt.
Muslims are a minority, outnumbered 75 to 1 in this country (Christian to Muslim ratio)

And thus when one or two or a handful of Christians do something, it's a boring canard for right-wingers to trot out the "but what about the muslims" defense...


You are having the discussion right here.

Okay. I'm done with this idiocy.
You're going to continue to paint yourself as a victim in your own imagination regardless of what is said.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

um the answer is actually yes Fi66
it's people VEIWS about race, sex, color, national origin, and orientation that are the root of the problem.

So most of what you follow with ...doesn't really apply.


ha, sheesh,
I think most rational people recognize that even Hypothetically speaking it is bad IF John cheats or IF Jill cheats.

the point is it's wrong for both or OK for both. most normal people can understand that IF John did cheat she'd have a right to be angry.

a better version is,
Jill actually cheated on John but she doesn't think anythings wrong with it.
And FI66 pretends that no one should even imagine the idea that John could cheat on Jill and that Jill would think THAT was wrong.
why FI66? 'Because that hasn't REALLY happened.'
seriously?

most people wouldn't buy that line from FI66.
Unless they where good friends with Jill and/or didn't really like John.

But somehow when the Carolina laws were Voted into being you and many others are having a problem with it.



Do i get to characterize your view "prejudice" because i don't like it.
my legal view of bathrooms is based on clear scientific biological gender.... rather than wishful, illusory thinking.
I'm not sure what's "prejudice" about that. Prejudice toward universal objective REALITY, rather than personal fantasies maybe.

that's exactly what the former gov did and now people (like yourself?) are not just whining but apparently hindering the man's employment as punishment for doing what you rightly say people are legally and morally FREE to fight for.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

But John did not cheat.
Jill dreamed that John cheated and thus she got mad because of something John never actually did.

Likewise, you were complaining about a reaction you imagined but never actually occurred....


Is that what I said?


My point was you are criticizing people for what happened in your imagination.
Imagining people doing something is one thing.
Actually thinking ill of somebody for things they never actually did but you JUST IMAGINED them doing? That's dumb.


Pay attention to both what people ARE saying and what people are NOT saying.
Did I say you couldn't have a problem with what's voted in?



I've explained why I feel your opinions are prejudiced in the past.
We can revisit that if you like.
But as memory serves, you dropped the discussion and didn't even try to contest the assessment. Thus, unless you're actually interested in discussing it, I see no point in further discussion.


And yet again, more goal-post moving.

You get that this is how the world actually works, right?
People say and do things they feel morally about all the time, and it affects them in the real world. That happens on BOTH the right-wing and the left-wing sides.

You get that, right?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

so your saying that those that advocate for various moral causes IN Political positions should expect to be denied jobs at colleges and elsewhere once they leave office because of their views.
So maybe like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton since they advocate FOR Abortion could be denied jobs at colleges. and that's just how it goes? Or Bernie Sanders since he's an outright socialist and promotes that, then he should expect to be denied jobs at colleges. People on left like that you mean?
Or is it only those on the right that when they promote their views that are being denied here?

FI66 I have no problem with you JUST IMAGINING left wing politicians that are denied jobs because of moral or controversial political views and positions taking while in office. But i would like to see an example or 2 in this case.
Since you say it "HAPPENS" to both.

Just so i get it.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

I agree.
You say something.
I respond to that exact thing you said.
And then you say something back that moves the goal-posts.

Let's try this...
I said: "YOU JUST MADE UP a scenario in your head and imagined other people's responses, criticizing them for what YOU IMAGINED."

Do you agree that's what you did?
I suspect not so let me quote it...

Joe For some reason I suspect if some former LGXYZ official was being rejected from getting jobs because they promoted some controversial sexuailty laws while in office that there'd be howls of "Discrimination".
But somehow that doesn't apply to the other side of this issue.

The "I suspect if" is a clear demonstration that you are making up a hypothetical scenario that you are imagining left-wing reaction to.
But of course, you refuse to admit that dontcha...
But if you refuse to admit that it only exists in your head, then give a link to where it happened...

Or, pull your usual routine of moving the goalposts...


What's funny is in a few sentences you explicitly state the following:
mr. wonder: "Since you say it "HAPPENS" to both."
But above you're questioning whether I think it applies to the left...


Do you even understand when you contradict yourself so openly like this?


I really get tired of your lying crap.
I really do.
Did I say I "IMAGINING left wing politicians that are denied jobs because of moral or controversial political view"?


I said: "People say and do things they feel morally about all the time, and it affects them in the real world. That happens on BOTH the right-wing and the left-wing sides."
But of course, you try to misrepresent that by JUST quoting "happens", dontcha...

To give two examples of what I was actually talking about...
Gay teacher Lonnie Billard sues Charlotte Catholic High School over firing | Daily Mail Online
The insubordinate bumper sticker: A Kerry fan gets fired, and then hired, for her politics.
Hell. I'll give you a third one...
Rifle maker bounces boss who supports Obama

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Is this person being punished?

Tomi Lahren Suspended From The Blaze

Conservative media company The Blaze suspended political commentator Tomi Lahren for at least one week, according to USA Today. The news was first reported by conservative news outlet The Daily Caller on Monday.

Lahren, 24, reportedly wasn’t on good terms with her co-workers after she claimed last week to be "pro-choice" during an appearance on ABC’s "The View."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tomi-lahr...223212133.html

Or is that her views just do not fit in with the Blaze?

__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.

thank you, you've just proved my point.
"Gay teacher Lonnie Billard sues Charlotte Catholic High School over firing"
your examples show that what's being done to the gov is WRONG. it is wrong when or IF either side does it.

Your Slate article says basically what Joe and I have been saying but some like yourself have been trying to poo poo, dismiss or deny.
"....Firing a person because you don't like his or her politics runs contrary to just about everything this country stands for..."
link
Firing and NOT hiring, black balling.it's WRONG. it's punishment.
it's what happened during the macarthy era, it was wrong then and wrong now.

but maybe the slate writer is a prejudice liar who's only imagining things.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

probably BOTH in that case.
If she's on the editorial or writing staff or an on air personality, she's not a fit for the job. just like a pro-lifer wouldn't be a good fit as a planned parenthood spokesperson.
the person's views are clearly CONTRARY to the orgs mission and that job's purpose.

But If she's working as an accountant at the Blaze then it's ONLY punishment and is wrong.

But there's ZERO mission issues with the Gov being on board at a college. he's not trying to stop 'transgenders' from getting college educations. which is the real mission of the college. and just as importantly college campuses are suppose to promote the free discourse of ALL IDEAs. so his presence would ADD to the mix of views of the faculty which apparently is already leaning left so far left they can't see strait.

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8