Woman fired for giving Trump the bird

Note she was fired under her company’s “social media” clause, even though there was no way to ID her as an employee from the photo. Meanwhile, another exec who called someone a “libtard” on am account which did ID him as an employee received no reprimand.


It looks like a find-an-excuse-for-firing-her revenge attack.

Admirable woman. I hope she finds another job soon. With a company that isn’t in the pocket of the Administration.


you don’t mean there’s a double standard there?!?!


I feel faint, where’s my couch to recline on?


Y’know, I almost posted this under Not Feminism 101 because of that.


I believe she posted the picture as her own profile picture on social media, essentially outing herself.

I think it’s egregious that this woman’s activities outside of work can affect her employment, but on the other hand if someone puts a profile picture of themself attending a white power rally, I’d want to fire that person from my company. Where to draw the line? I don’t mean that as a hypothetical or rhetorical question - really, what’s a reasonable and lawful policy about someone’s activity outside of work that could affect their status at work?


In this case, she’s making a hand gesture at a political figure. Why she did it, I’m not sure. Is it because the motorcade was fucking with her commute, or was it because she disagreed with the President? Worst case, she’s saying “I disagree with the President enough to disrespect him to his face… well, not really to his face, but as close as I can get to his face”.

Worst case, this is a bit rude and displays strong political opinions.

Meanwhile, anyone who’s attending a White Power rally is telling me that I shouldn’t exist. I would not want to interact with such a person, nor with any company that would knowingly employ such a person. They literally turn my stomach and make me want to run as far as possible from them. Rudeness does not even enter into the equation, nor do political opinions, because my right to exist has nothing to do with politics.

What if it had been a cyclist giving Obama the finger? On its face, I would have had a neutral reaction until I had all the facts. But reading between the lines, maybe 10% of the people who disliked Obama were third party weirdoes like me, and we didn’t tend to be outwardly hateful toward Obama despite disagreeing with him. The vast majority of the Obama hate came from the right, and it was race hate wrapped up in empty politics. So, if someone gave Obama the finger, I’d think, what’s the story? Then, is this person a racist? If they were racist, then bye bye racist.

I have no evidence that this woman is motivated by racism or any other kind of bigotry, or that she has any motivation beyond a strong political opinion, if that.


No. She did post the photo, but she didn’t ID it was a picture of her, and with her back to the camera and her hair tucked up under a cycling helmet, you can’t really tell. Given she’d already protested around Trump’s inauguration, I doubt anyone following her would have been surprised she posted a photo expressing what it does.


It’s hard to draw a precise line, but I’d say the place to start is with how it affects people. Supporting or opposing a politician need not matter much on its own. Rallying for white power on the other hand means things about how you think of other people, which are going to matter interacting with clients or coworkers. It’s a very different case.


But those are thoughts, or political beliefs, not actions. Aside from someone actually engaging in threats or violence (which obviously can and do happen at white power rallies) should someone’s political beliefs make them ineligible for employment if they don’t act on those beliefs in the workplace?

Is there anything that happens at a white power rally that isn’t making threats to other people? Maybe some of it isn’t explicitly threats of physical violence, I suppose, but I don’t understand how announcing “I don’t want these coworkers or clients to have equal rights” could possibly not affect how you act toward them.

I mean, some people criticized google for firing James Damore after his anti-diversity memo, and I get how we might be concerned about corporations discriminating against unpopular opinions. Yet I’m sure most would agree that if he had been writing to coworkers saying they don’t belong in that company, it would have been a fireable offense. It’s just that, because it was written as a political belief, people somehow imagine that wasn’t exactly what he sent them.

Similarly, if I go out in public and announce I want Steve out of my country, does that really count as a mere thought and not action against Steve? How much does it change if I only give his physical description?



One could argue that any white power rally is intended as intimidation, even if the participants aren’t doing anything directly threatening. That may be a completely legitimate argument given the history of the white power movement in this country, and the symbolism that was used to spread fear. Which is why I already regret bringing in the white power analogy.

Let’s talk about Steve instead. I don’t like Steve either. Steve’s rights are constitutionally protected, but I don’t really think they should be. I don’t want Steve in this country. Am I allowed to say that at an Anti-Steve rally? Should my employer be allowed to fire me because I attended an Anti-Steve rally? Even if I never had a problem with any Steve that I worked with, or any customers named Steve?

In the UK it’s nice and simple, relatively speaking; you can support or oppose politicians or parties but you cannot support a banned organisation and you cannot expect to get away with attending a rally which violates our laws on discrimination. Libel is a civil matter. On the other hand, an employer who sent out what he claims was a joke memo threatening to discriminate against employees who voted Labour found himself in a very difficult situation.

It reminds me of the joke from the 1960s:

“A man who stood outside no. 10 Downing Street and shouted “Harold Wilson is incompetent and George Brown is a drunk” is being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.”


Simple, but I’m not sure how nice. Personally I find the UK libel laws stifling.

You have actually experienced them?
I agree there are faults with both systems, but just remember that in the UK Trump would have had to pay multi-million £ damages to Obama over Birtherism and the whole Muslim thing. As an example, the despicable Daily Mail had to try to attack Ed Miliband by writing nasty things about his father, who was dead, because had they written the same things about him it would have been open and shut libel,