How do you draw a distinction between writing an NYT op-ed to, say, support same-sex marriage, voting for a candidate who supports same sex marriage, and signing a bill to allow same-sex marriage? In every case you're "just" writing something down. When does one cross the line from "just" sharing an opinion, to advocacy for that opinion to political action on favor of a policy?
Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?
Then debate them, run against them or campaign for politicians that will prevent or change those policies.
Which is exactly how same sex marriage came to have such broad support, by the way. Andrew Sullivan in particular tirelessly made the case for same sex marriage, including to exactly the kind of people you describe, and changed many minds.
Sure I can do all of those things, but you didn't address my question. If I think someone will harm me, I can do all of those things, but why not also do more?
> Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?
For the same reason you shouldn't treat someone who wants to raise your taxes and give it to other people as if they intend to steal from you.
Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft?
Like the reason I don't object to taxes (in general) is because I think I get value from them, even in the redistribution sense. If someone proposed to raise taxes and give all the proceeds to Jeff Bezos, I would consider that a proposal to steal from me.
> Isn't that generally a conservative opinion though, that taxation is theft?
Yes, but you don't see conservatives fire outspoken democrats for thievery, or give them the ultimatum that either they acknowledge that taxation is theft or get fired. If conservatives did that then I would tell them to stop, say that what they are doing is against free speech ideals and if abuse got too bad I'd advocate for laws against it.
> while the views that usually result in people being fired are fringe and, in a word, vile
That is not true, a large majority don't agree with many radical lefts views, but would still get fired if they voiced those opinions publicly.
For example, should trans people compete in sports of their chosen gender? Almost two thirds thinks that they shouldn't, but saying that will get you labelled anti-trans and fired from many jobs, even though you might support trans-rights completely in every other regard.
> It would be deeply unpopular and ineffective, but I don't see why it should be illegal.
It would be extremely effective as most business owners are right wing. They just don't do it because they don't care what their workers thinks, they care more about profits. But if they banded together and made this policy at every right wing owned business you would see huge consequences, as the workers can't really choose to go somewhere else.
What jobs would that get you fired from? Name one.
(this is precisely the issue with "cancel culture" discourse that Popehat identifies: there's two phenomena, one of people being removed from their jobs or facing actual life consequences. This is thankfully usually rare, and usually applies only to relatively powerful people who say relatively awful things[0]. There's also a second phenomena of people receiving any sort of criticism for a controversial statement, and panic-mongers conflate the two, to suggest that any criticism is an attempt to silence you or ruin your life. That's simply not the case. Yeah, you'll get criticized online for saying trans-women shouldn't compete in women's sports. You'll probably also be criticized for the opposite view. You're not going to get fired for either, unless you're explicitly making an issue out of it in your workplace, and then the issue isn't the particular view, it's being disruptive).
[0]: And to preempt this, yes I know it sometimes results in normal people losing their jobs. This is unusual, even among the relatively rare aspect of people losing their livelyhood.
Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?