The Line between Public and Private

I would like to discuss the line between public and private.
What sparked this interest are two recent events that make you wonder where does the line get drawn on your public and private life.

The first is the total infusion of the racist comments secretly recorded of Donald Sterling - owner of the Clippers basketball team. (still as of 05/12/2014).  And the second is the ousting of the CEO of Mozilla due to a $1000 donation to the Prop 8 (California Marriage intuitive) several years ago.


Any smart person knows that what they do and say in private could and likely will be used against you in the future if you have some sort of more public profile.  That being - if you are in upper management of an organization, are in entertainment in anyway etc you have a public profile.
Those that are just one of 30k employees for a large company need not worry as much.


So what makes these situations a bit disturbing?   The fact that something that should be private has turned into something that is public.  Take the Mozilla case for a moment.  What does a $1000 donation to a political cause have to do with anything?  Would it have mattered if he had given the money to elect a green party candidate?  How about to a political party - Communist of America, or the US NAZI party or the Democrats.  It really would not.  It would be a bit disturbing, but, is not a person allowed the ability to express themselves?  The more disturbing is that because it was in support of a cause that got labeled as anti-gay he got hit.  He donated to a hot button issue.

"The forces of intolerance won. With Eich caving in, there is no conversation, and the world is not a better place for the free exchange of ideas. " Mozilla CEO Eich caves over Prop. 8 donation

Again where does one's support of prop 8 have to do with his ability to run the company?
Maybe it does but, in the end talk is talk and actions are actions.  You need to judge the person more by the actions not just the talk.
It takes a pretty good charlatan to talk like a racist in private and be 100% non racist in public.
The Sterling case is classic in this regard.  He was discriminator long before these comments were leaked.  He'd been to court multiple times on just these issues.  But, that finally do something now years later.  Seems like they are a little late to the party, and may have gone overboard to make up for something that should have been done years ago.





Where should the line be drawn when it comes to conduct in private for a more or less public figure.

Have people become so intolerant of a person being able to express their views if they are against a hot button group that they in reality are being intolerant?
I definitely see a difference between someone donating to prop. 8 for example and them saying that anyone that is gay or gay leaning can not work at my company.  One is discrimination and the other is expressing a voice in the public square and going through legal channels to get things changed.
Also it seems that now in some cases you find a cloud of fear hanging over you.  Decide to support something deemed against our protected group(s) and you'll be run out of town.  So you don't express your opinion since you feel afraid to be harassed if someone decides to turn against you.  Not good.
You begin to cut out even the civilized discussion.  Why, fear that's why!

Many groups have been putting the fear factor into things for quite some time now.  They make themselves appear to be move then the 10% of the population that they are.  This in turn with the fact they are willing to fight in court helps them to get their way.  Those groups reluctant to go to court, and that do not have a lot of people in high profile professions don't seem to be much of a threat.

Take the Montgomery bus boycott as an example.  This worked as all non-violent protest should in the end due to what it caused.  They found an injustice and decided to show how much they as a group could effect the overall good.  They simply quit using the bus.  They company to gain back the ridership and fix things had to reevaluate their policy of who sits where in the bus.  They did not go around bad mouthing the drivers (they just doing their job) , or egging the buses or the like.  No they found alternate forms of transportation.  Then as the economics began to be felt the bus company, local government and the like had to come to the table to rectify the situation.

This is how things should be handled in cases like the basketball team owner that is racist.  Quit going and then as things do down the drain he will have to sell.  Who will hold on to a team that is losing a ton of money?
Works the same with any business.  Take the baker and photographer that decided they would not do business associated with a same-sex wedding.  The people that got rejected decided to do more then just take their business elsewhere and tell all their friends and like minded individuals to do the same.  No they had to go to court and claim discrimination.  Sadly, it was for what would have to be classified as religious discrimination.  They chose to not bake a cake or take pictures their religious belief do not support same sex marriage.  And sadly, the baker and photographer both lost.




This opens up another can of worms in my opinion.  The can that states - your religious beliefs don't matter if we decide they don't matter.   I guess someone could come and take someone to court if they decided to their business being closed on Sunday is discrimination.  Do I see a future law suite against Hobby Lobby on the horizon.  Some Atheist or agnostic decides he feels threatened, or discriminated against due to the fact they are closed on Sunday (day of the Lord ie. Sabbath) and since they don't believe in a supreme being.
Someone tried this against the Boy Scouts and it did not work in relation to the Pledge of Allegiance and Oath/Law.

Where do you draw the line?  When do your religious beliefs become discrimination?

Liberty versus liberty: religious freedom bills trouble gay rights supporters

At UVU, Elder Oaks sees hope despite 'alarming' religious liberty trends

"Elder Oaks maintained that freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion doubly protect religious liberty, but he said there are reasons to be concerned about the vitality of both.
"I fear that free speech is diminishing as a result of the chilling effect of mostly invisible restraints, even censorship."
He cited a number of examples but then added another, one "very personal to me," of the boycotts, firings and intimidation of those who backed Proposition 8 — defining marriage as between a man and a woman — in California. He mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago.
Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

I think the Mozilla case show a bit of over reach.  The Donald Sterling case show a lack of action till it was past the time it would not cause other problems.


We really need to be careful when we go and take a person's personal at home talk and put it out in the the public arena.  We need to be careful that we don't take things out of context.  That we give the benefit of the doubt first and after we have good details then we take action.  That way we allow everyone to have their turn and so there can be a civilized discourse.

Once we throw out the ability to have a civilized conversation about Politics, Religion, racism, and the like we have lost a lot of what makes America great.  We have decided to let fear and extortion rule supreme.  And unfortunately that is what they use in dictatorships to keep themselves in power.






Buaidh - NO - Bas