Really? If someone at your job expressed the "opinion" that you, personally, should be chained and sold as property, and that they should be allowed to beat, rape, and murder you as they saw fit, that would be acceptable behavior at your job?

Because that's what the OP was suggesting, except that they used the umbrella term "slavery" to refer to it.

Yes, really. The OP did not really say that. OP used the word "slavery" and having opinions about slavery is totally different than saying that some specific person should be murdered. If someone at my workplace would support slavery, whatever that is by today's standards, I would probably feel that I don't want to work with that person. And depending on that someone's role, his employer might want to have a word with him and might ultimately have some good grounds for terminating his contract. But just having opinions are rarely a reason to fire someone. And that is just right (my opinion).

I imagine that for most people in first-world countries who aren't avid studies of historical ignominy, "slavery" conjures connotations of indentured servitude, rather than complete autocratic determination over others. In fact, even if "slavery" was still something that existed in otherwise-modern countries (let's imagine the US never bothered to fight a civil war over it), you'd probably not be allowed to "beat, rape, and murder" your slaves--any more than you can currently beat, rape, and murder your pets.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and they shouldn't be ostracised for expressing them. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, only opinions that you disagree with.

Oh yes there bloody is: an opinion held in spite of overwhelming evidence.

While I generally subscribe to the Utopian ideal that good ideas should be able to triumph over bad ideas by virtue alone, there are probably both times where it is inappropriate and appropriate for someones opinions and beliefs to be relevant to their employment.

Scenario A, normal job, no customer interaction, non-manager, but an irrepressibly talkative fellow. Likes to talk to his co-workers about how awesome slavery is. Co-workers have complained that they're tired of hearing him, you've talked to him, he keeps talking irregardless.

Scenario B, customer-facing job. It comes up at the company picnic that the employee thinks slavery was really awesome. You haven't yet heard him mention this to a customer.

Scenario C, manager. One of your underlings, in charge of a hopefully-diverse group of under-underlings, expresses his pro-slavery opinions to you.

A more relevant and recent example is whether you support software patents. Those opposed to them rail against those in favor of them pretty hard. Some are now making hiring decisions based upon that. Should I not be allowed to express my views on software patents simply because you don't agree with them? You'd like to paint it as a black & white issue, but I don't see it that way.

Sorry for the liberal use of pronouns there. But there's an extremely worrying trend to me whereby it's no longer okay to disagree or have an open discussion about certain topics that the HN mass has decided their stance on. Most of the time I, and many others, just bow out and let everyone here virtually pat themselves on the back as each professes the moral high road they've taken. It defeats the point of having an open forum or discussion on an article. It's our equivalent of political rhetoric.

You did a very good job of illustrating the slippery slope that we open up when policing ideas and the issue being where do we drawn the line.

Detour from the main point: as a programmer, I'm pretty OK with programmers and programmer-employers coming to blows over software patents. Programmers are still in a bit of a weird spot with respect to the rest of the working class. Get fired from your job as a cashier at Walmart because of your opinions, you'll be lucky to find another job. Get fired from your job as a programmer because of your opinions, you'll probably find a better one even before your blog post on employer X firing programmers who are opposed to software patents gets a thousand points on HN. As a programmer, I just don't feel the same employment-insecurity a lot of non-programmers I know do.

The main point of the matter is, the interests of employers and employees are not well aligned. Employers do not want employees to know what their coworkers or colleagues at other companies make. Employees benefit from having this forbidden knowledge. Employees would prefer to only be fired for direct, active malevolence towards their employer. Employers would prefer to fire anyone they think is a liability to their business.

Employee beliefs matter because, as much as employers would prefer otherwise, employees are not cogs or robots who perform mechanistically. If you don't believe in software patents, how will that affect your performance at your job? Even if your employer isn't a part-time patent troll, but is extremely concerned about being sued by them, will you generate your fair share of defensive patents to be used as a shield for a few years? Or will you knowingly violate software patents you believe are bullshit, opening up your company to 10x the penalties should you lose in court?

> As a programmer, I just don't feel the same employment-insecurity a lot of non-programmers I know do.

I think this perspective is common recently, but only due to the current boom/bubble. I don't expect that to last forever, and somewhat anticipate the kind of insecurity you're describing (although I don't feel it right now), which is why I don't say anything even slightly controversial under my True Name.

A: That guy is not pleasant to work with and needs management. I've worked with people who were like him, but their subject of choice was WoW.

B: Either he's capable of keeping his eccentric views to himself when dealing with customers or he's not. Whether it's supporting slavery or Bush 43, he can ruin a business relationship by expressing that view at the wrong time.

C: Again, he needs management. Does his view negatively affect his capability as a manager? What if he's an evangelical Christian and he has gay underlings?