People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view?
If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed.
Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.
Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.
A better example is an atheist working with an evangelical. Both the atheist and the evangelical will have very strong opinions on each others' belief systems.
As long as that person isn't constantly soliciting investment advice from me or asking me to front them loans, I don't think it's unreasonable for an adult to be expected to tolerate opinions that do not affect their work.
Hell, I've worked with co-workers who consider Jews illegitimate occupiers of their country, yet we still got along just fine by avoiding talking about politics in the break room.
To play devil's advocate, what makes it right for certain groups to be able to be preferred over others? How come perceived racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are pushed out and the subjects of their hate allowed to stay?
What if we flipped your statement around. "As a misogynist, I could not work with a woman. As a homophobe, I could not work with an out homosexual. As a an outspoken anti-semite, I could not work with a reverent jew."
Let's say for the sake of this example both parties are the same in efficiency. But, come due time one party starts to openly resent the other and demand they be fired from the company because they cannot work with [insert group here]. Now, I didn't say this was the anti-semite or the jew. It could be either, so let's not shut down here.
Group A says they cannot work with Group B, because Group B holds X idea. Group B can work with Group A, even though Group A holds Y idea.
Is management really right in, in this isolated fairy tale example, in firing Group B because Group A cannot work with them?
Let's reverse the roles in the Google fiasco. Let's say it was the detractors who were fired instead of Damore. Do you think this would have been unfair?
If so, why do you believe it's okay for the original situation to happen? I'm aware there are other variables, but this is what it boils down to.
