Right but we live in a civilized society.
Costing someone their career isn't outright taking their freedom away, but it's fucking their lives up for their beliefs (and social pressure acts subjectively. So when you are arguing for it, you are arguing against yourself. It's your right you want to restrict). Time and freedom and money is fungible. It's not exactly imprisonment but it's ensuring looking for a new job or career and could cost you a fortune. Which means you are forced to work much longer than you would have otherwise. Telling a senior citizen they have to work till 68 instead of 62 maybe, because of their beliefs, doesn't seem like freedom to me.
There are plenty of people who lost their jobs because an unruly mob got it wrong. Don't. Embolden. The mobs.
Tyranny doesn't happen overnight. You are pushed incrementally, inch by inch, until you're a world away from where you initially started. That's not hyperbole, that's how people became nazis en masse. Willingly. Don't get caught up in a specific example to justify restricting your own right. Literally the country north of us is making it illegal to say anything negative about Islam, which is obviously subjective and could be used horribly, and a conversation abut Islam is one it behooves you to have.
You guys are fighting for pragmatism. That's fine, but it's parochial . I urge you to study up on the first ammendment and why some really smart guys made it literally the first ammendment. Youre either genuinely for free speech and understand why it's so important, or you're not for it and are pulling a lever for tyranny. Why on earth would you be for restricting your ability to say what you want? These guys didn't know what they communicated was so inflammatory they'd lose their livelihood. Could be you next, and you won't know it until it's too late. Defending it is just ill advised imo.
And what happens with Griffin? Her career depends on creativity. Worlds going to miss out on a lot of stuff if everyone is scared to touch subjects. Conversations will not be had. That's ensuring we don't address problems the best we possibly could. It ensures disconnect.
Obviously they have a right to fire. Your business cannot be held captive by people who refuse to stop behaving in ways that put their company at risk. Business owners rights and employees rights come to a head, otherwise they would literally allowed to say what they want, in the actual sense it was intended.
You really aren't acting much differently by advocating loss of employment because of someone's beliefs vs imprisonment. You are OK with constraining free speech and persecution of people for their beliefs. That is a subjective offense, which is why it's imperative you don't support it. You do not know when it will be used, or against you, whether it's just or not. So don't set the damned precedent. Once you start justifying it and qualifying it, you're pissing all over the principle.
Our speech is an extension of our thoughts. It's the entire basis of the ammendment. You don't restrict thought. We are free to think what we want. If you start chipping away at what we're allowed to say, you're setting precedent that we aren't really allowed to say what we want, or believe what we want. Your society will self censor out of fear of persecution.
We focused on escaping tyranny and set out to prevent it manifesting in our new country. None of what you're supporting follows this line of thought.
