Where am I claiming that they should have any legal ramifications for their opinions ? Where you support having Bannon fired . but they are also subject to the social consequences of those opinions . And I say that as a society we shouldn ' t try to silence others by having them fired . if the CEO of a company publicly stated that he believed people like you of your r a c e n a t i o n a lityethnicitysexualityetc were subhuman monsters who shouldn ' t be allowed to exist in our societyThere are already people like that , and I don ' t care what they think , that ' s their opinion . is it wrong to boycott using the company ' s products since you do not wish to support that man ? We ' re not talking about boycotting , we ' re talking about having someone fired from their job . This is precisely how the marketplace of ideas is intended to function . Here ' s the issue , you , as a person are free to boycott whatever company you want . But it is morally bankrupt to boycott a company for one person ' s personal opinions . You wouldn ' t be saying this if people were boycotting companies because a gay guy , or a black guy , or an Asian , or whatever identity you would want to defend , was the CEO of the company . Now let ' s go back to the politician giving a platform to Nazis . If I say that this person cannot possibly represent me well if they agree with and support Nazis and I ' m able to convince enough people to agree with me , doesn ' t that mean he doesn ' t actually represent us and isn ' t doing his job well and thus , those being key functions of his position , is reasoning to fire him ? Representation and his personal beliefs are two totally different things . I can personally think that Chocolate is awful , and I hate it , and if I ' m elected into office , I might want to raise taxes on chocolate because I hate it . But As a representative , I have to keep in mind the populous I am representing . If I publicly denounce chocolate and say You know what , I hate chocolate . but then I make sure to still represent the populous by enacting laws that are based in their interest , such as a reduction on a chocolate tax . I can have my opinion , but my opinion shouldn ' t be the basis for whether I am hired or fired , my actions should be . At no point am I saying that the only opinion and social influence allowed in the country are those i approve ofWhen you say stuff like thisIf I say that this person cannot possibly represent me well if they agree with and support Nazis and I ' m able to convince enough people to agree with me , doesn ' t that mean he doesn ' t actually represent us and isn ' t doing his job well and thus , those being key functions of his position , is reasoning to fire him ? You are saying that . You and I both know it is to the end goal of weeding out undesirable opinions from office , and thus majority shall only be represented . You have made your goals clear and I disagree with them on a moral level .