So when judges rule in a way you don't like it's judicial activism?
Not always but in this case it was. The judge was not impartial. He was a gay man who exploited his position to further the cause. It wasn't just his vision of what ought to be, it was a decision in which he had a personal stake. People get bent out of shape that Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto, it would be like if he still consulted for them while on the bench.
For example if you were a bartender you could use adult language with customers and not get fired, while if you were a mascot at an amusement park you couldn't.
If there are behavioral guidelines in place, that's true.
I can't show up to work in a french maid outfit and keep my job while a stripper can.
If there's a dress code where you work.
I could, however, star in porn videos in my free time and keep my job while a Disney pop idol couldn't.
Two words, "Morals Clauses". Three more words "Disney uses them".
Are you getting the idea?
Yes. That you're grasping at straws.
In some jobs there are restrictions in what's allowed both on and off the job for PR reasons.
This has nothing to do with that. This was legal, ethical behavior that took place several years before he was employed by Mozilla. After a modern-day witch hunt and lynching, he was forced out of a job that he was eminently qualified for and that's wrong.
LK