As a point of fact you are simply wrong. That she has high scores than other people who were admitted is not in dispute by any side. This is a stone cold fact- Science! Whatever you think about this case overall, you cannot lay the label of ‘mediocrity’ at her feet.

Trump is saying the judge is incapable of being unbiased because Trump makes nationality an issue. Ask yourself: What would this situation look like if Trump himself were Mexican, but his positions were the same?

So we can assume a white male judge is interested in oppressing women or minorities?

I’m not sure what calling out the current situation is supposed to say. Certainly it’s not that “social norms are right”, because clearly there are, and have been, social norms that were “right” at the time but are “wrong” now.

“Just the way it is” is wrong, and progressives should understand that more keenly than anyone.

You really did not say anything, so I was left in a position to guess.

I agree there’re all kinds of wild absurdities in the justice system from top to bottom.

Saying that a Mexican cannot be biased as a judge is itself a racist comment.

You can look elsewhere in the thread but I agree with you basically re: she was acting as a representative of the station on their own page. I think a more interesting discussion is if you agree or not that if we alter the situation to her ‘off-the-clock’ speech, if the same outcome should have resulted.

The way you are using the term ‘bigotry’ is a value judgment. Your position supports firing people for their off-the-clock speech if it violates your own personal standards. That’s fine for you to believe that, but whether that should be the law of the land is another discussion entirely.

You better not be upset when Trump says that Mexican judges can’t be fair to him if you are going to turn around and say that white males cannot be fair to people of color and women in their trials.

I am not suggesting that all speech all time should be protected. I think something along the lines of, expressing a viewpoint on a social/political issue when not at work shall not be grounds for employer retribution. You may not refuse to hire someone based on their political views. Etc.

I agree entirely- It would not bother me at all to see political/social opinions become a protected class. (with obvious exceptions such as when you are literally the face or spokesperson for a company, etc.)

Protected classes do not exist to prevent government interference. They are specifically to guide the actions of the private sector.

That is an important distinction, but it is far from unlikely she wouldn’t have been fired had this been posted on her personal page or Twitter (see: Curt Schilling)

“Homosexuality isn’t ‘some unpopular viewpoint’. It’s the systemic destruction of the social order and ruins lives. That is never OK.”

It should be. The day will come when you have some unpopular viewpoint that you will sit on because you don’t want to lose your job over it, and you will agree it’s not good for the ‘marketplace of ideas’ that this should be so.

Wow, that guy is vulgar, but lo! So intelligently vulgar that I am forced to evaluate what he says. Sliced to the very core of my psyche, I stand dumbfounded and put in my place by this modern day Renaissance Man.

I won’t. :)

I’m sure you’ll be the first one posting that xkcd comic the next time someone you sympathize with gets fired for their off the clock speech.