West Virginia Republican Delegate and state lawmaker Michael Folk today attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.

Folk, who was first elected in 2012 and also works as a pilot for United Airlines, posted this tweet on July 16:

@HillaryClinton You should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution… then hung on the Mall in Washington, DC

— Michael Folk (@MichaelFolk34) July 16, 2016

United Airlines, which employs Folk as a commercial pilot, tweeted that they are looking into the situation. -

For more information: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-polit ... e-executed

910A wrote:

@HillaryClinton You should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution…

I don't agree with Folk's call but since when is calling for someone to be placed on trial a call for murder? He doesn't appear to be calling for a lynch mob to take things into their own hands but is simply using extreme language for political gain.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

You already have the death penalty in the US, so a lawful sentence of execution following a trial is not murder, although public executions are generally regarded with disfavour in civilised countries, many of which have abolished capital punishment.

HGL wrote:

I don't agree with Folk's call but since when is calling for someone to be placed on trial a call for murder?.

How about reading the second part of this "lawmaker"'s tweet? Anywhere else in a civilised society this guy would be forced to resign and investigated, yet in the US of all place he would probably increase his election margin next time. Despicable.

West Virginia, UA pilot, and "hung"...why is anyone surprised

Cerecl wrote:

How about reading the second part of this "lawmaker"'s tweet?

Reading is one of my capabilities, thank you, along with comprehension.

Again, he has not called for a bunch of vigilantes to lynch Clinton. He called for a trial and expressed his opinion on a suitable punishment. His speech may be hyperbole but we are used to that from politicians who wish to big note themselves.

Let's keep things in perspective. What he wrote may be "unparliamentary" speech but whatever happened to "freedom of speech is absolute and indivisible?"

Does United have a social media policy? Would this violate it?

DocLightning wrote:

Does United have a social media policy? Would this violate it?

Most large corporations do these days, I'd be amazed if UA didn't.

I dont know if i'd go on to say he called for her execution. What if he had said 'tarred and feathered'? Hung out, tarred and feathered. Hard to say, although I myself would think what you think...

If so, I do hope United takes disciplinary action. Not a pilot I'd feel safe flying with. Keep your political issues to yourself if you are transporting the public. If we eject muslims simply for praying at the airport or on the plane, why would I want to fly with a pilot with that much of a distasteful view such as that. He could be unhinged.

yes, Free Speech.. But free speech does not come without repercussions.

I would be disappointed if this guy got flak from United for this tweet. It's been stamped in our heads that free speech protect you from the government, not private parties. But the reality is, when companies fire their employees for relatively inconsequential things there is a chilling effect on every other person. Free speech becomes "free speech". He doesn't seem to be advocating anything illegal and clearly shows he wants to follow due process. His political views do not appear to affect his job performance, so I disagree that Untied should take any action at all.

United should care more if he tweets, "Delta is infinitely better and I don't understand why any of the morons that sit behind me pay a penny for their seats".

HGL wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

How about reading the second part of this "lawmaker"'s tweet?

Again, he has not called for a bunch of vigilantes to lynch Clinton. He called for a trial and expressed his opinion on a suitable punishment. His speech may be hyperbole but we are used to that from politicians who wish to big note themselves.
Let's keep things in perspective. What he wrote may be "unparliamentary" speech but whatever happened to "freedom of speech is absolute and indivisible?"

You are shifting the goal post. He called for Clinton to be executed which is exactly what the OP stated. It is not good enough to simply dismiss this as "politicians big noting themselves" because this ought not to be acceptable anywhere in any profession.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want without consequences. As a politician he would have some followers, those who read his tweet may be foolish enough to attempt to put his call in action.

N867DA wrote:

It's been stamped in our heads that free speech protect you from the government, not private parties. But the reality is, when companies fire their employees for relatively inconsequential things there is a chilling effect on every other person. Free speech becomes "free speech". He doesn't seem to be advocating anything illegal and clearly shows he wants to follow due process. His political views do not appear to affect his job performance, so I disagree that Untied should take any action at all.

On the other hand, bigotry and violence should not be able to hide behind free speech. How can one judge a call for trial for treason and death by hanging inconsequential? I don't believe public hanging is anything to do with due course either. He knows what effect his tweet would produce on his followers and if he didn't he has no business being a lawmaker.
UA should care because he is tarnishing its public image. How many Clinton-supporting potential customers would UA lose? He is an employee of UA and a public figure, this go way beyond how well he can fly a plane.

Cerecl wrote:

You are shifting the goal post.

Nonsense. He wrote quite clearly that she should be put on trial and continued that as a result of that trial she should be executed. Now I agree that it is a pretty silly thing to say, but he is not advocating that anyone take the law into their own hands. No goal post shifting at all.

Now the law which I quoted doesn't actually specify how a death sentence should be carried out if imposed. Whether you choose to hang someone, shoot them, fry their brains or inject them the outcome is the same. Personally I don't care if hanging is the chosen method as I am opposed to the death penalty in any case. Further, it is unlikely that any prosecutor is going to bring a case against Clinton now or in the future. So, as I wrote, keep things in perspective.

As to his being separated from UA as a consequence, unless he suggested that he was speaking in his capacity as an UA pilot or was using UA communications systems, then his views are none of UA's business. Or are you going to advocate that people who work for any organisation should never express an opinion on any subject in public, outside of working hours, just in case someone decides to become precious?

N867DA wrote:

I would be disappointed if this guy got flak from United for this tweet.

Most major corporations will have HR policies which would include catch-all clauses to the effect that anything that reflects badly on the company can result in disciplinary action.

Indefensible really, certainly for someone directly associated to a major corporation. He says the words "should be" and then describes her alleged crimes which include murder and treason. He offers none of the proof he has to say this. The real problem though is that he advocates for punishment due to violations against the Constitution that in itself is a violation of the Constitution. As much as slavering Fox turd buckets wish to see public hangings return the The Mall it won't happen as long as we keep their presidential candidates out of office. The man is unhinged and needs counseling.

Cerecl wrote:

UA should care because he is tarnishing its public image. How many Clinton-supporting potential customers would UA lose? He is an employee of UA and a public figure, this go way beyond how well he can fly a plane.

AND: Because it is most likely (in spite of all the noise) that she will be our next President, UA would prefer to not tick her off. That's kind of a rule of running a business: don't have the President ticked off at you.

HGL wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

How about reading the second part of this "lawmaker"'s tweet?

Reading is one of my capabilities, thank you, along with comprehension.

Again, he has not called for a bunch of vigilantes to lynch Clinton. He called for a trial and expressed his opinion on a suitable punishment. His speech may be hyperbole but we are used to that from politicians who wish to big note themselves.

Let's keep things in perspective. What he wrote may be "unparliamentary" speech but whatever happened to "freedom of speech is absolute and indivisible?"

No, it is not. People can not yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. If he believes that Hillary should be tried for treason, that is one thing. I disagree with that opinion, but he is free to say that. However, calling for the open execution of elected officials is cowardly and wrong, IMO. I think that is what people are talking about.

Cerecl wrote:

N867DA wrote:

It's been stamped in our heads that free speech protect you from the government, not private parties. But the reality is, when companies fire their employees for relatively inconsequential things there is a chilling effect on every other person. Free speech becomes "free speech". He doesn't seem to be advocating anything illegal and clearly shows he wants to follow due process. His political views do not appear to affect his job performance, so I disagree that Untied should take any action at all.

On the other hand, bigotry and violence should not be able to hide behind free speech. How can one judge a call for trial for treason and death by hanging inconsequential? I don't believe public hanging is anything to do with due course either. He knows what effect his tweet would produce on his followers and if he didn't he has no business being a lawmaker.
UA should care because he is tarnishing its public image. How many Clinton-supporting potential customers would UA lose? He is an employee of UA and a public figure, this go way beyond how well he can fly a plane.

I do not believe the pilot has said anything especially bigoted about Secretary Clinton, though I supposed capital punishment is pretty violent even when it's done lawfully. It is inconsequential because this guy's role in the government on any level is pretty inconsequential. As long as it's not against a protected class or generally offensive (and I admit there's a gray area here) I don't care what he says.

The number of Clinton-supporting customers United would loose is equal to the number of Trump fans that pay a bit extra to fly them. He is a public figure, but we live in a country where public figures think Guam could tip over or that the female body has a legitimate way of shutting things down in cases of legitimate rape. I wouldn't vote this guy for dog catcher but any action against this pilot on United's part would be a mistake.

I never understood people who stop using a business because of what one of their employees spouted off on Twitter that was totally unrelated to the business, and while off the clock. Do you seriously think this has anything to do with United? YOU, and the media is making this an issue.

You're not going to fly united because of what some guy tweeted? You're not going to that dollar store anymore because the clerk has a rebel flag on their car? I mean, really?

Bottom line is, it's United who needs to handle this internally. Whether there is a provision in this guy's contract that he can be sanctioned or dismissed for bringing United Air Lines into disrepute, and whether he did or not.

Punishing UAL by withholding your patronage is just plain wrong. That plane you fly on could be crewed, loaded and fuelled by die-hard Democrats who depend on you for their jobs. Yes that's an extreme example but it could be the case. You can't punish everyone in an organisation for the actions of one individual.

I swore myself to never post in non-av again, but this time around, it's something I need to get out: The man represents United Airlines. So you have to be very careful about what you post on Facebook or Twitter, because if the media finds out where you work for and your employer finds out about this, you're in a world of trouble. People have gotten fired over even less.

I remember this football player who was signed to FC Barcelona, and got fired days or even hours later after a tweet came up from a few years ago, where this player made very disparaging remarks about FC Barcelona. Employers nowadays try to screen your social media as part of the hiring process. Thus, whatever you're saying in social media, can come back to haunt you. This is why even I have grown to be very careful about what I say, because I know that things I may have said in the past can come back to haunt me, and I may get no chance to clarify before I get my papers or my job application gets rejected over this.

UA is doing the right thing by not firing him right away though, because otherwise they'd have to deal with legal issues with ALPA (if they're unionised, I'm not aware about union status since the UA-CO merger) and potential lawsuits. The investigation and suspension is necessary to keep things within internal due process and make sure that the reasons for a potential termination are iron clad.

ArmitageShanks wrote:

I never understood people who stop using a business because of what one of their employees spouted off on Twitter that was totally unrelated to the business, and while off the clock. Do you seriously think this has anything to do with United? YOU, and the media is making this an issue.

You're not going to fly united because of what some guy tweeted? You're not going to that dollar store anymore because the clerk has a rebel flag on their car? I mean, really?

I agree. Anybody who stops flying United because of this is a moron. The pilot did nothing wrong anyway, especially as he said Clinton should be executed only after an official trial that finds her guilty, rather than for example publicly encouraging some random person to kill her.

Apparently United has taken him off of flying pending investigation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ution.html
(Daily Mail is very conservative leaning, but this was a recent article)

It looks like the next 4 years will be as ugly as the last 8...

Aesma wrote:

It looks like the next 4 years will be as ugly as the last 8...

...and the 8 before that.

Basically this guy demonstrated some really bad judgement and United should take a hard look at letting him fly their planes. Display of bad judgment should be sufficient to keep him off of any fight crews.

HGL wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

You are shifting the goal post.

Nonsense. He wrote quite clearly that she should be put on trial and continued that as a result of that trial she should be executed. Now I agree that it is a pretty silly thing to say, but he is not advocating that anyone take the law into their own hands. No goal post shifting at all.

Now the law which I quoted doesn't actually specify how a death sentence should be carried out if imposed. Whether you choose to hang someone, shoot them, fry their brains or inject them the outcome is the same. Personally I don't care if hanging is the chosen method as I am opposed to the death penalty in any case. Further, it is unlikely that any prosecutor is going to bring a case against Clinton now or in the future. So, as I wrote, keep things in perspective.

As to his being separated from UA as a consequence, unless he suggested that he was speaking in his capacity as an UA pilot or was using UA communications systems, then his views are none of UA's business. Or are you going to advocate that people who work for any organisation should never express an opinion on any subject in public, outside of working hours, just in case someone decides to become precious?

He also insisted that she be found guilty so that she can be executed. Never mind that, legally, there is no reason for it. Just like the whole "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" thing...

Well that didn't take long....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ANews=true

Ken777 wrote:

Basically this guy demonstrated some really bad judgement and United should take a hard look at letting him fly their planes. Display of bad judgment should be sufficient to keep him off of any fight crews.

"Bad judgment" is subjective, though. What they'll do is terminate him for violating their social media policy; every airline has one and requires all employees to read and agree to them, acknowledging that violations can result in termination.

As I read these comments, it becomes horribly apparent how intolerant we've become in this so-called era of tolerance. United might have a 'social media policy', as do other 'companies', but one really has to wonder exaclty how lawful something like that truely is. Granted, you want to work there, you sign the agreement, your skin, your problem. But then, anyone who thinks their employees and management are lily-white needs some examinations done.....ink spots, anyone?

I'll leave the good old standby - the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" - alone. It is good to see tired old adage dragged out from time to time, though.

It is saddening that it'll end up that most people that are Democrats won't be able to work for one airline and others who are Republican another. This character's comments end with a rather dire consequence, but then treason and the other crimes he wants Ms. Teflon to be tried for are kinda dire anyway. It's even more saddening that she might become president, but we'll leave that annoying prospect for later discussion.

It is clear, as well, that this guy called for a trial, not for a lynching. Judging that he's been suspended for this episode, he may as well have done so. This doesn't cast much of a good aura over United, but it's their sandbox, and they can do what they want - at least they are standing by their principles, so to be fair I have to acknowledge that. I'm also sure that they won't miss the seats lost from any possible fallout either, but that's entirely speculative.

As for the idea that United would want to be seen to play 'nice' because HRC "might" become the next president is laughable....as I said above, they are acting on their principles, and that would show a disturbing lack of such.

All of this might just show lack of good judgement on all sides. Just like HRC - (funny that, eh?) - at the minimum.

A company should be as neutral as possible. They don't want to be nice to Hillary, they want not to appear as jerks towards her.

Nobody mentioned it so I will, there hasn't been even a slap on the wrist for the colossal blunders under W, so why should Hillary hang for much less ? I mean, 9/11 vs Benghazi ? Iraq vs Libya ?

Aesma wrote:

A company should be as neutral as possible. They don't want to be nice to Hillary, they want not to appear as jerks towards her.

Nobody mentioned it so I will, there hasn't been even a slap on the wrist for the colossal blunders under W, so why should Hillary hang for much less ? I mean, 9/11 vs Benghazi ? Iraq vs Libya ?

You have a good point....Dubya had a good portion of the ME melt under his watch (Obama the rest). Just conjecture, but I think perhaps it has a much to do with the (poor) performance of Mr. Obama with HRC's added blunders as anything else. Totally on their own, Hillary's issues wouldn't be as bad - but since the two of them are of the 'wonderful' Democratic party, I think that comes into play as well(?).

Not so sure if we want to hear 4 years of "oops, bad judgement - sorry" coming from Washington.

It seems Republicans are fine with it considering they're sending a clown to the election.

Aesma wrote:

It seems Republicans are fine with it considering they're sending a clown to the election.

Pardon the coffee on the monitor

Well, they did say 'send in the clowns', and Trump is theatre extraordinaire. You know, there's something - considering how ridiculous the candidates are this time (have they ever not been...?), and how the general public seems to view both of them (the election in general), there should be a coin toss at the Washington Monument. Hillary and Trump - either of them President and Vice-President. For all the crap we've had over the last 2 years, and potentially the next 4 years, payback should be they have to work together.

If they can't, they have to clean seagull poop off the National Mall till they do.

I am surprised about some of the posts in this topic. Somehow calling someone to be executed is OK as long as long a lynching was not called.
He can have very negative views about Clinton, he can express his view that she is incompetent and if elected will be a bad president, it is his freedom to think and say such. But a line has to be drawn somewhere and he has crossed it. Being a public figure one needs to consider what impression one's behaviour and speech will leave, and the possible implication arising.
As said previously, if this guy was anywhere else in a civilised world he would receive universal condemnation. Can you imagine a Australian MP tweeting similar content about someone else on the opposite side of politics?

Given this clown called for a trial with a punishment in mind, I hardly think he was planning on a fair trial.

Which would be interesting since I don't know how many times she's been effectively exonerated anyway. I say that as I'm definitely not a fan of hers....still beats a Republican in their current joke of a state.

I will be amazed if this man gets to keep his job.

What a waste of seniority.

coolian2 wrote:

Given this clown called for a trial with a punishment in mind, I hardly think he was planning on a fair trial.

He didn't even mention if a guilty verdict was required!

Cerecl wrote:

I am surprised about some of the posts in this topic. Somehow calling someone to be executed is OK as long as long a lynching was not called.
He can have very negative views about Clinton, he can express his view that she is incompetent and if elected will be a bad president, it is his freedom to think and say such. But a line has to be drawn somewhere and he has crossed it. Being a public figure one needs to consider what impression one's behaviour and speech will leave, and the possible implication arising.
As said previously, if this guy was anywhere else in a civilised world he would receive universal condemnation. Can you imagine a Australian MP tweeting similar content about someone else on the opposite side of politics?

A United pilot is not a public figure.

ArmitageShanks wrote:

A United pilot is not a public figure.

Possibly not.

However this individual is an elected state legislator, which is certainly a public figure.

Among his qualifications for being a viable candidate for the position are being a airline pilot according to his website.'

Individuals who work for private companies who choose to run for elected public offices do make a conscious decision to place their 'public figure' life ahead of their professional life. If there are controversies in their public political life, they should fully expect possible consequences from their private employer.

Michael Folk had to be aware that such comments might have a negative impact upon his career by bringing his employer status into the public discussion.

However, at age 63, Folk is planning his mandatory retirement in less than two years from being an airline pilot, and he likely doesn't care that he might be pushed out the door a little early. This is an election year, and his chance to be noticed and likely improve his political career chances.

DocLightning wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

UA should care because he is tarnishing its public image. How many Clinton-supporting potential customers would UA lose? He is an employee of UA and a public figure, this go way beyond how well he can fly a plane.

AND: Because it is most likely (in spite of all the noise) that she will be our next President, UA would prefer to not tick her off. That's kind of a rule of running a business: don't have the President ticked off at you.

That I'm not so sure about - although Crooked Hillary and Crooked United are perfect for one another

It's amazing people are defending this guy. He could've stopped at the perfectly acceptable first phrase of his Twit. It's the second part, advocating for a public execution that boggles the mind. It's a practice outlawed in the early part of the last century, kinda like segregation, a woman's inability to vote etc etc. It's not a stretch to thus think that he advocates for other very nasty practices...maybe slavery, the wholesale slaughter of Indians..who knows what kind of lunacy this guy dreams about.

This jackass just showed very poor judgement and now 300M people know about it, and his association to United Airlines. That's a problem for UA. I personally don't think he should be fired for it but at minimum he'll he given a "last warning". Some shit you say at a bar or a backyard BBQ, but when you start whoopin it up on Fox News or Twitter you better understand the consequences. People who don't you might want to examine their heads a bit before they push the throttles on a 777 again.

wingman wrote:

It's amazing people are defending this guy. He could've stopped at the perfectly acceptable first phrase of his Twit. It's the second part, advocating for a public execution that boggles the mind. It's a practice outlawed in the early part of the last century, kinda like segregation, a woman's inability to vote etc etc. It's not a stretch to thus think that he advocates for other very nasty practices...maybe slavery, the wholesale slaughter of Indians..who knows what kind of lunacy this guy dreams about.

This jackass just showed very poor judgement and now 300M people know about it, and his association to United Airlines. That's a problem for UA. I personally don't think he should be fired for it but at minimum he'll he given a "last warning". Some shit you say at a bar or a backyard BBQ, but when you start whoopin it up on Fox News or Twitter you better understand the consequences. People who don't you might want to examine their heads a bit before they push the throttles on a 777 again.

So its OK to be crazy to 14 people in a bar or BBQ but if its done on Twitter or Facebook its not? What if it were a bumper-sticker on his car? This slippery slope of firing people in the moment of insanity that is the news cycle is not good for anyone. So he's fired from his job...great. Now what? Does that solve anything really? No. The people online and at the news will comment on it and everyone will be thinking about how justice was served to some asshole and in 3 days we won't even remember what airline it was. What does that accomplish in the grand scheme of things?

ArmitageShanks wrote:

So its OK to be crazy to 14 people in a bar or BBQ but if its done on Twitter or Facebook its not?

Correct. Because even you in your post have demonstrated that you know the difference between an audience of 14 people and an audience of 8 billion.

DocLightning wrote:

ArmitageShanks wrote:

So its OK to be crazy to 14 people in a bar or BBQ but if its done on Twitter or Facebook its not?

Correct. Because even you in your post have demonstrated that you know the difference between an audience of 14 people and an audience of 8 billion.

Not at all. I think speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be protected. Now I'm sure you'll say it is and its private businesses making a private decision but that is not right in a lot of these circumstances either.

How does that make any sense at all for the meaning behind the message? What are you trying to do other than silence someone's speech? Its OK for him to call for the death of someone as long as its within earshot below some arbitrary number of listeners? What is the cutoff for that number? Can he write an op/ed in the paper and be OK? What about talking about it in a support group or on a sidewalk with a sign?

EA CO AS wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Basically this guy demonstrated some really bad judgement and United should take a hard look at letting him fly their planes. Display of bad judgment should be sufficient to keep him off of any fight crews.

"Bad judgment" is subjective, though. What they'll do is terminate him for violating their social media policy; every airline has one and requires all employees to read and agree to them, acknowledging that violations can result in termination.

It doesn't matter how United gets rid of him as long as he is gone. He just screwed up and needs to go. United depends on public trust for their future and stupid remarks like that guy's certainly do not support their needs. He can now get a job as a radio commentator and make millions like Rush.

You liberals leftists are funny and complete hypocrites.

You are lynching a state senator of his day job because you don't like something he said. It's pretty pathetic on your part.

And considering the actual violence that the anti-trump forces have unleashed against people that don't support Hillary it is also very hypocritical.

I hope United isn't so stupid as to fire him. There would be one hell of a lawsuit that resulted from it.

Work is much less protected in the US than speech so I don't see the problem, he can say anything he wants without legal trouble, United should be able to fire him without legal trouble too.

Aesma wrote:

Work is much less protected in the US than speech so I don't see the problem, he cas say anything he wants without legal trouble, United should be able to fire him without legal trouble too.

What complicates that a bit Aesma is that he is a sitting state legislator also. Companies can get it trouble if they fire people who make statements in their official capacity, which he was in this case, and then fire them because of that. Essentially it is punishing that elected official for representing the folks that elected him not the company line.

L-188 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Work is much less protected in the US than speech so I don't see the problem, he cas say anything he wants without legal trouble, United should be able to fire him without legal trouble too.

What complicates that a bit Aesma is that he is a sitting state legislator also. Companies can get it trouble if they fire people who make statements in their official capacity, which he was in this case, and then fire them because of that. Essentially it is punishing that elected official for representing the folks that elected him not the company line.

This is an interesting point. On one hand, he's likely violated UA's social media policy, which can be a terminable offense. On the other hand, he may have been speaking in his official capacity as a legislator. Where do you draw the line?

Say for example this wasn't about Sec. Clinton, but instead, he loudly voiced opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges. UA, like other carriers, came out strongly in favor of the ruling; would his statements in social media be an issue at that point, or not?

EA CO AS wrote:

L-188 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Work is much less protected in the US than speech so I don't see the problem, he cas say anything he wants without legal trouble, United should be able to fire him without legal trouble too.

What complicates that a bit Aesma is that he is a sitting state legislator also. Companies can get it trouble if they fire people who make statements in their official capacity, which he was in this case, and then fire them because of that. Essentially it is punishing that elected official for representing the folks that elected him not the company line.

This is an interesting point. On one hand, he's likely violated UA's social media policy, which can be a terminable offense. On the other hand, he may have been speaking in his official capacity as a legislator. Where do you draw the line?

Say for example this wasn't about Sec. Clinton, but instead, he loudly voiced opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges. UA, like other carriers, came out strongly in favor of the ruling; would his statements in social media be an issue at that point, or not?

And lets ad to this...what about bumper stickers or t-shirts worn around town? Or giving money to anti-gay groups? Should employees be fired for that? Once we start where does it end?

This whole story is a non-issue. Firing the guy won't accomplish a thing other than the 8 minutes of self-congratulations some will feel that someone was silenced for what they said.

Ken777 wrote:

Basically this guy demonstrated some really bad judgement and United should take a hard look at letting him fly their planes. Display of bad judgment should be sufficient to keep him off of any fight crews.

Bad judgement for a pilot are the ones who took an A-321 from LAX-HNL when that 321 was not certified to fly that route.

When I fly, I am confident that the pilots are not sitting up front before take off and reading the political leanings of the passengers. In fact, I would imagine that is the last thing on their minds, if they are professional about it.

This pilot made one bad remark. If it were made on his own time, who cares? What is his flying record? How many accidents has he had? How many passengers has he lost under his care?

Again: calling for the execution of someone just because you disagree with them is wrong. But, if a pilot has not done anything wrong on the job, so what?