Quote:
You're wrong to think that this is merely a result of someone's voluntary activity on social media, too. I don't believe any of the Prop 8 supporters who were targeted were identified by their activity on social media.
I was only focusing on social media as an example because of this case, and my personal experience with policy changes governing employees behavior on their own time. I understand that it reaches beyond this as well, but I also realize this isn't a new phenomenon; people have historically suffered consequences, both socially and economically, for their decisions to publicly engage in behavior that the Constitution protects. It's not always *right* that they do, but that doesn't make our society any less free. I'd say it makes our society less tolerant, and perhaps less ideal than if such actions never occurred, but I wouldn't call it less free, and, in fact, I'd say that to restrict the employers' ability to hire and fire at will would be to make our society less free.
The question is both practical and philosophical, and the answer depends on one's perspective. Did the Civil Rights Act, as it applies to private industry, make our society more free, or did it make it less free but more consistent with our values?
Quote:
One should not have to choose between supporting oneself and expressing one's opinion as a private citizen in a free society. That's no kind of freedom at all.
Apply the same reasoning to your voluntary association with the Church (I can hear your eyes rolling in your skull from here, but bear with me): to rephrase your earlier question,
why should you have to choose between your Constitutionally protected right to fornicate and blaspheme, and your access to eternal salvation? The answer is, because that's the way it works. You can choose to associate with your Church/employer, and reap those benefits you desire, or you can terminate your association and find another Church/employer that suits your needs or desires more broadly. You are entirely free to do this, but of course you choose as you do, on the criteria of your preference, and you willingly accept the conditions it imposes on your life. You were highly critical of Sister Social Justice on a Bus, because she essentially wanted to bend Catholicism to her view of how things *should* be, rather than promote and live by the teachings of the Church. I think your criticism is justified and correct, by the way, and for the reasons, among others, I just described. If you don't like the conditions of your associations, you can either work internally to change them, or you can find alternative accommodations. Sister Social Justice (whatever her name is) needs to leave the Church and join a group that sees things her way--Unitarian Universalism would suit her worldview and ambitions very well, I suspect. Similarly, if you don't like working for a corporation that places severe restrictions on aspects of your public behavior, either work internally to change it, or find alternative accommodations.
This applies in all associations, universally--marriage, parenthood, civic group participation, etc. They all require that you modify your behavior in ways that limit your ability to do as you please so long as it's not in violation of law. You can complain that in a free society you should be free to associate with whichever women you choose, and to stay at the bar 'till 2 am every night, and that demands placed on you to meet their expectations are an infringement of freedom or liberty, but I don't think you'll garner much sympathy for your plight when those voluntary associations fall to ruin. I think the sticking point here is that you don't view employment in the same light--a voluntary, contractual association that benefits both parties. I'm hard pressed to see it any other way, ultimately (although I've said before and maintain today that the balance of power ultimately tilts toward the employer, although LIbertarians strenuously disagree with that assessment), and I think the vast majority of employers allow employees a wide berth and do not place onerous restrictions on their free time. Those that do are not likely to keep good employees for very long, so it's largely a self-limiting problem.
Mrs sphere is contractually prohibited from any and all public acts of political campaigning, in every imaginable iteration. Doing so can, and almost certainly would, result in termination. This is not an infringement on her freedom, because it serves to protect her employer from charges of political bias (and in her position this is vitally important), and because we moved halfway across the eastern seaboard, voluntarily leaving her former place of employment, for the benefits it would provide for our family. We were not coerced to do so in any sense of the word, and she is free to leave after she's met her contractual obligations, to work wherever and for whomever she chooses. I don't for a second consider us any less free because of her restrictions, and in reality, those benefits allowed us to support our family while I completed my medical training (an outcome that was not possible before this opportunity presented), which is allowing us to move to a better financial footing, and thus affording us greater ability to exercise our freedoms.
I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be
better if we did retain total freedom without consequence in our down time, provided we don't run afoul of the law in ways that directly harm our employers, I'm just arguing that these voluntary associations and the conditions they require don't make us less
free as a society in any meaningful sense.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
