So to be clear, just because you don't care, clearly a lot of people do care that people are treated with respect and acknowledgement that everyone deserves (just look at everyone responding to you).
So let's say (and I know your not saying this, but it's an example), someone says something homophobic at my company. It wasn't hate speech, and it wasn't a crime. But still clearly disrespectful to another employee. I'm this employee's boss, and I want my team to work together and respect each other, otherwise they're work may suffer. In addition, I personally don't like the idea of someone who is disrespectful to others because of their sexuality; it reflects badly on their character, and reflects back on what behavior the company allows in the workplace.
Again, no crime was committed. But if the behavior continues with a warning, I ABSOLUTELY reserve the right to terminate such an employee.
I mean, you live in a society. Just because something isn't a law, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consequences.
Completely off-topic and I don't have anything to add here.
So - let's be clear. In most corporate situations, there are typically well-established standards of behavior, dress codes, values, etc. And every employee is supposed to understand them. So - when someone says something homophobic (or any other behavior not rising to the level of criminality, but still against expected corporate behaviors), it is incumbent upon someone to actually report it to management, legal, HR, or whoever is responsible for investigating claims.
And - there are usually investigations, with (in most places of business) the understanding that it is alleged until proven to be true. Statements are taken, interviews are conducted, HR and Legal are consulted, before action is taken - whether it is a verbal warning, or up to and including termination.
And the accuser can certainly seek civil damages as well against the perpetrator - with information stemming from a corporate investigation certainly being able to be used in a court trial.
So - an investigation occurs, it is determined that an employee said something homophobic (or anti-women, or anti-veteran, or whatever areas are deemed to be against those corporate standards of behavior. The individual is counseled on what is expected (something usually is entered in their personnel file) with the understanding of what the consequences of their actions are if they do it again. Does management then terminate the employee? Sure - and they ought to. But the
key is that investigation(s) were conducted, evidence gathered, and proof established. Let's say that in your example, an investigation revealed that the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator were former partners who had a falling out, or who fought over someone's affection, or were competing for the same promotion, or any number of reasons where the evidence doesn't show that the alleged action actually occurred. Let's say someone in management just doesn't like the person alleged to have said something homophobic, and uses the accusation as a pretext to terminate them. Now - they've opened the company up to a potential lawsuit for wrongful termination. An investigation needs to occur, and the evidence needs to clearly show that the alleged behavior actually took place. It is
also incumbent that if the behavior actually took place, that appropriate action needs to be taken, else the company is open to a lawsuit from the accuser.
This is the issue I have - an allegation made by people against other people holds no more weight just because it is posted on social media than any other allegation. Internet mob justice has no place in determining if someone committed a crime or can be held civilly liable for their actions in private interactions between individuals - that's generally the purview of the courts. If it happens in the context of a corporate setting, the company needs to investigate and take appropriate action, up to an including referral to law enforcement.
