The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
Just because it’s technically allowed doesn’t mean it’s not reprehensible treatment of a mostly blameless person, though. I’m not sure it even IS technically allowed, actually. She might have a good libel and wrongful termination/breach of contract case…
As I said, no judgement from me one way or another. Also we have no way of knowing what kind of contract she had or whether there was some kind of morality clause. Maybe this violated it. Maybe not.
All I was saying was that, whether right or wrong, employment can be terminated pretty much anywhere in the United States for any reason as long as it’s not a protected thing, which this almost certainly is not. So saying something is or isn’t a fireable offense probably needs some context. Because anything could be a fireable offense if the company thinks it is.
Just because it’s technically allowed doesn’t mean it’s not reprehensible treatment of a mostly blameless person, though. I’m not sure it even IS technically allowed, actually. She might have a good libel and wrongful termination/breach of contract case…
As I said, no judgement from me one way or another. Also we have no way of knowing what kind of contract she had or whether there was some kind of morality clause. Maybe this violated it. Maybe not.
All I was saying was that, whether right or wrong, employment can be terminated pretty much anywhere in the United States for any reason as long as it’s not a protected thing, which this almost certainly is not. So saying something is or isn’t a fireable offense probably needs some context. Because anything could be a fireable offense if the company thinks it is.
You’re right, I should have been more clear about expressing what I actually meant in the first place. I meant should but said would lol