What struck me as funny at first was the inversion. I had to read the post twice to make sure I was getting it right.
"Stepped down from the McCain campaign after having been caught giiving $2300 to Manhunt."
b) I presume a lot of Republican gays are secure & satisfied enough in their personal lives that they can make their political choices/priorities in grous other than those connected to their orientation. Taxes, war, abortion, whatever.
A victim of privilege does not necessarily want to weaken/eliminate all forms of privilege, just as a poor person does not always want to eliminate all wealth. Many people just want to move to a higher position in the heirarchy/status structure, or create a new structure that gives them advantages of privilege.
I bet gay Republicans are disproportionately represented in the groups of men looking for hook-ups. Wide stances and manwhores are how the GOP boys roll.
So you are fine with workers being fired because of their political donations? Actually I think this is of dubious legality if the guy wanted to make an issue of it.
So you are fine with workers being fired because of their political donations?
Fine only with contributing to a Republican being a firing offense. Or being a Republican, or marryin one. Or talking to a Republican.
a)We have here a CEO "asked to step down" Presumably with a parachute he went willingly. I am not sure even a board can "fire" a CEO without going to court. In any case, it rarely happens, usually a mutually acceptable arrangement is reached.
b) CEO's AFAIK are not protected by fair labour laws etc. They are contract labour. A party should be able to get out of a contract at any time for any reason, as long as they are willing to pay whatever compensation the counterparty demands. If not, let it go to court.
I agree with Bob's eliminationist rhetoric.
I've definitely heard of people being fired for their politics before. It's not protected. Last I heard it was a guy with a Democratic bumper sticker fired from a factory run by Republicans.
I don't see what's not to get about any of this.
The Saddleback thing freaks me out b/c I think that's the pastor for my asshole fundie uncle. Unless he's left th church b/c the pastor's gotten too liberal or something.
I don't get how this is part and parcel of of labs not getting gaypublicans.
Management is not employees, and can be fired on whim.
This is kind of interesting, because Manhunt is a local company and I know a bunch of people who work there (it's a couple of blocks from my office). I should ask them what they know about this.
I am not sure even a board can "fire" a CEO without going to court.
This is in fact what boards are for -- to exercise authority over the CEO. CEOs get fired all the time; some get huge golden parachutes, though they usually have to "voluntarily resign" to get the full package. Anything more than decent severance is less likely at a small company when the CEO's been fired for cause.
So you are fine with workers being fired because of their political donations?
Republicans believe that employers have the right to terminate an employee for any reason whatsoever. (AKA "right-to-work.") I have no doubt at all that Crutchley left his job with a song in his heart and a spring in his step.
I have no doubt at all that Crutchley left his job with a song in his heart and a spring in his step.
Homophobe.
14: I was surprised to learn this years ago -- and it's true for many non-profits as well, though not with the golden parachute (maybe with a bronze or just aluminum one). Yeah, CEOs, or Executive Directors, work on contract, and the board has authority over them; this means among other things that they work outside any formal pay structure the organization may be mandated to, as well as the usual formal employment law. It's all personally negotiated.
Larry Townsend (who was a right-wing semi-fascist SOB who would certainly have voted Republican if they could have got over being homophobic) once claimed he had dialogue with a gay Republican:
Gay Republican, explaining why he and other right-wing gay men were supporting a party that supported anti-gay laws: "Gay men don't have to vote with their balls!"
Larry Townsend: "They do if someone is trying to cut them off."
Gay Republicans are heavy masochists. They like the fantasy of being held down and raped by men more powerful than them. Some of them probably fantasise about being Dick Cheney's sex slave.
What's not to understand?
As I've said elsewhere, very churchy, very nice boys often seem gay, and often they really are. (Being nice around here includes not being forward with girls). There seems to be something about trying to gain approval by niceness and ingratiation. I think of that when I think of gay Republicans. (This does not contradict #18 at all.)
Here in Denmark, G'publicans are the norm, not the exception. Gayness isn't remotely a political issue here. Gays be marryin', and no one has a problem with it. This leaves The Gays no choice but to vote with their wallets. In other words, their high income and their terrible taste in careers (HR, anyone?) are the only things driving their chad-popping. Thus most of the gays here vote for the right-wing, tax-lowering parties.
I don't know if the same thing would happen in the states if we gays get everything we politically want, but lefties should be generally aware that, once minorities get what they want, they tend to act -- and vote -- just as selfishly as the majority.
I doubt that I met 10 Republicans 1965--1973. When identity politics muscled out leftist politics, I started to meet lots of Republicans, mostly gay.
Parsi: I'm not sure what 'formal employment law' you're thinking of. A CEO is an employee, just like the guy in the mailroom. In some circumstances, I suppose, the mailroom guy might be in a union, but I think that's less common than it used to be. And being in a union just means that he has different (ie better) contractual provisions.
20 describes my gay republican acquaintance very well. (And I gotta point out that minorities voting for the progressive-type parties is still voting selfishly. As do we all.)
I love the evaporation of any pretense to small 'l' liberalism. Yes, it is OK to fire people based on their politics -- nice to know, oh people of the left!
I'm not sure how I think about this. Does his giving money to the campaign undermine Manhunt's message/profitability? If so, then that looks like a justifiable reason. It's the difference between firing someone for an affair or a political position and firing them because they're bad for business.
(And this would apply to the CEO, but not the guy in the mailroom.)
24: Our hatred of the rich trumps everything else. Surely you know that.
I didn't know what to think about this, but since experience has taught me that baa is wrong about everything, now I know to be in favor of it.
I just had a flash on the height of the American pyramid. Paul Wellstone was the great populist of recent American politics because he wasn't rich and lived on his Senate salary.
Before his election he was a full professor at Carleton College, one of the nation's very best liberal art schools, a position which nowadays pays $73,000. But in the Senate that made him the equivalent of a sharecropper or a coal miner.
Yes, it is OK to fire people based on their politics -- nice to know, oh people of the left!
Are you going to suggest some heavy-handed government regulation to prevent this (freedom of expression) from happening? How typical.
24: I suppose there are a few tenured academics here, but most of us work in environments where we could be fired for our political views, the color of our socks, or most other arbitrary causes.
McCain, meanwhile, is a pretty extreme guy on gay rights - he equates abortion with infanticide, but says endorsing unspecified "gay rights" is worse than endorsing abortion.
Of course an organization that has gay customers is going to have a hard time with public endorsements of McCain. Holocaust revisionism is perfectly legal in this country, but if a revisionist wants to lead AIPAC, he's going to have to keep quiet about that view. That seems reasonable to me. What would you propose in the alternative?
24: Also small 'l' liberalism is held in lower regard around here than you imagine, and for good reason.
Should Obama's people force out the political hacks that Bush illegally put into the Justice Department? I'd say yes. Fuck small 'l' liberalism if we're defining it as capitulation to illiberalism.
I've got a lot of affinity with the pacifists and the small 'l' liberals in most circumstances, but their principals don't work well against powerful people who don't share those principals.
31 -- There's this.
24 -- I don't support firing people because they made a donation. I don't think people should be employed at will in general, but would prefer a wrongful discharge statute, of the kind in place in the USVI.
24:Oh noes! My pretense has evaporated!
This thread has gone quiescent, so I could use this vast empty exspance to continue my general critique of small 'l' liberalism, or I could spare you the meta-politics and attempt to justify an unconstitutional emergency-power disbanding and utter destruction of the Republican Party.
The Republican Party, overtly & covertly, in principle & practice has committed subversion & treason. Any party in a democracy that says "Government is the Problem" is nothing less than a subversive party in principle. There are other dangerous ideologies out there, but none with the power to and historical record of implementing their horrific goals. In addition, with a platform & candidate that seeks even further tax cuts in a time of profound fiscal and monetary crisis, for the express purpose of further weakening the nation (even if theoretically tho disingenuously strengthening the position of some segments of the economy) the Republican Party is a clear & present danger to the stability of the nation and the physical survival of its citizens.
For that reason, I want that party dead & gone.
That is not to wish the death of tens of millions of individual Republicans, although a few thousand should be led to the guillotine. After trial, perhaps.
And I would welcome the new parties inevitably formed out of the ashes of the old, even though they would likely be generally in opposition to most of my preferences. I think a Social Conservative & Libertarian Party would attract enough of the Democratic Base that the two party stranglehold that has paralyzed American Politics for fifty years could be broken.
Baa, that's the same troll as Shearer. My irritation with the troll has to do with the fact that a serious conversation about this would have to have something to say about the different roles of the CEO and the guy who does grunt work (haha) for Manhunt and the resulting expectation that the CEO's responsibilities go beyond 9-5. What cheap analogies do you want? The editor at Ebony giving money to the CCC?
30
" I suppose there are a few tenured academics here, but most of us work in environments where we could be fired for our political views, the color of our socks, or most other arbitrary causes."
Not in New York or California .
baa, I think it's fair to say that we've all given in on "theme" employment. (Japanese restaurants only hire asians out front because it's good for business.) Now instead of a hostess or waitress it's the CEO, but I think we already gave up the core argument long ago.
Should Obama's people force out the political hacks that Bush illegally put into the Justice Department? I'd say yes.
If I got hired through the fault of some hiring agent, I wouldn't consider that grounds for firing me.
Career government lawyers are heavily, so I'm told by one, Dems. The faulty hires will be let go if they don't perform.
I would like to see Obama's people punish Goodling and Gonzales, but that's probably not possible.
22: Parsi: I'm not sure what 'formal employment law' you're thinking of.
I know nothing of law, of course, so was speaking ex recto and late at night, but I imagine I meant just that CEOs can be fired (asked to resign) for oddball things that would otherwise not be kosher. Now, people are saying that regular ole employees can be fired for such as well. I've never worked in an environment like that, so I'm out of my depth.
24: baa, most contracts include a clause that say you can be fired for behaviour that brings the organisation into disrepute.
The CEO of a company that runs a gay website made a public declaration that he wants elected the candidate who opposes equal marriage, supports DOMA, and opposes the right of LGBT people to serve openly in the military. Allowing the CEO to remain in charge of the company after he supported an anti-gay bigot for President, would certainly bring the company into disrepute.
This matters because he's the CEO. For someone on a lower level of employment this wouldn't be particularly important - I mean, it would still say something about the person who did it, but it wouldn't justify firing them. But the CEO of a company is supposed to provide direction and leadership. This CEO has just demonstrated that he thinks equality under the law for LGBT people is unimportant. Therefore, he can't provide leadership.
This is difficult to understand why?
As I've said, all that can probably be done to the Goodling hires is transfer them to Minot, monitor their bathroom breaks, and make them redo everything three times until they quit.
a serious conversation about this would have to have something to say about the different roles of the CEO and the guy who does grunt work
Yes, but this is Unfogged.
OT: Very curious how obamawill handle the many Aafia Siddiqui cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aafia_Siddiqui
What a horrible Nazi-level story.
One of Sidiqui's lawyers, Liz Fink, is from my alma mater (Reed College). I seem to end up knowing a lot of civil liberties lawyers for some reason.
have you considered that you might be some sort of anti-american subversive, john? but seriously, I'm so upset about that story. where are the kids???