> only a certain stance on controversial issues is acceptable, and implying (or stating outright) that divergence from this orthodoxy amounts to an affront to human dignity
There are a variety of controversial issues where one position is a literal affront to human dignity (i.e., a deliberate act of disrespect).
> This kind of rhetoric creates a hostile and toxic work environment
This is a privileged view of the situation.
As a simple example, imagine you have three coworkers: Alex, Blake, and Taylor.
Alex believes that Taylor should not have been allowed to have married their current spouse, and posts on their personal Twitter account advocating that the decisions which allowed that to be possible be repealed.
Alex hasn't shared their beliefs in a work setting, but did tweet something about the company and as a result Taylor saw the other tweets and learned how Alex felt.
Taylor believes that Alex's position is a deliberate act of disrespect. Taylor fears a decision that would result in no longer being married to their spouse, which would lead to problems with medical insurance, child custody, finances, etc. Taylor doesn't feel safe working with someone who actively wishes to destroy a meaningful part of their life.
Taylor asks the company to make a statement supporting their right to have married their partner.
Blake says that Taylor is creating a hostile and toxic work environment.
Is Blake right? Or is Taylor acting in self defensive, in response to an already-hostile and already-toxic work environment? Is the discomfort felt by Blake acceptable "collateral damage"?
Do your answers change if the hypothetical scenario is not about a same-sex couple in 2020 following Obergefell, but an interracial couple in California in 1950 following the ruling of anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional?
There are a variety of controversial issues where one position is a literal affront to human dignity (i.e., a deliberate act of disrespect).
> This kind of rhetoric creates a hostile and toxic work environment
This is a privileged view of the situation.
As a simple example, imagine you have three coworkers: Alex, Blake, and Taylor.
Alex believes that Taylor should not have been allowed to have married their current spouse, and posts on their personal Twitter account advocating that the decisions which allowed that to be possible be repealed.
Alex hasn't shared their beliefs in a work setting, but did tweet something about the company and as a result Taylor saw the other tweets and learned how Alex felt.
Taylor believes that Alex's position is a deliberate act of disrespect. Taylor fears a decision that would result in no longer being married to their spouse, which would lead to problems with medical insurance, child custody, finances, etc. Taylor doesn't feel safe working with someone who actively wishes to destroy a meaningful part of their life.
Taylor asks the company to make a statement supporting their right to have married their partner.
Blake says that Taylor is creating a hostile and toxic work environment.
Is Blake right? Or is Taylor acting in self defensive, in response to an already-hostile and already-toxic work environment? Is the discomfort felt by Blake acceptable "collateral damage"?
Do your answers change if the hypothetical scenario is not about a same-sex couple in 2020 following Obergefell, but an interracial couple in California in 1950 following the ruling of anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional?