EventHorizon
Member
I'm no lawyer, but my layman's interpretation is that those types of protections are not universal and don't apply if whatever characteristic being protected is a required attribute of the job. For example, you can't generally discriminate on race and gender, but that wouldn't apply in casting for a specific part in a show, movie or play. There it is perfectly fine to limit your search to a specific gender or race if that is what the part is to be cast as. Palmer is the face of Oculus and thus his image reflects on them and is part of his job.I'm glad someone is asking this because this is exactly what I posted on my FB:
So I don't pretend to know the law, but researching a bit on California law it seems there are protections in place from being fired for political activities.
Those that are advocating that FB/Oculus remove Palmer Luckey should also note that FB recently was under hot water for other political events internally according to reports.
Not sure that they're within their rights to actually remove him if they wanted to do so at this time. I could be mistaken though as I'm not an expert in this field.
Also, to those thinking a boycott will help stop someone that has the amount of money that Luckey does to contributing to things they don't agree with, that's naive at best. The man already got his payday, you're now just hurting those who had nothing to do with him or his actions.
I'm not advocating either way on this topic, I'm merely pointing out the logical road bumps in the path.
Btw, the boycott is to show public disapproval for those types of actions. The distressing thing about this election cycle is that poor behaviour is being normalized. For example Trump suffers little blowback from gaffs that would have easily torpedoed other candidates. For comparison, Romney's 2012 campaign was dealt a death blow with his 47% remark, and Howard Dean lost his chance at the 2004 Democratic nomination just because he screamed too energetically in a microphone. This reaction is at least setting some base standard for some people about what is acceptable.
You can't get sued because you might have done something. Either you did something illegal or you didn't? There is no imagining.If Oculus allows him to openly support racist causes outside of the workplace, is it that far of a stretch to image that race may be a factor to Palmer and/or other prominent Oculus staff in the workplace?