Concerned about right-wing wacko Google footprint Forum

[A'nold]

Hmm. I has lunch with the managing partner of my office last week, and the conversation was hunting. We were all pro.

Guns are somewhat less of a concern. Gay marriage is a much bigger concern since many firms actively recruit from the LGBT community.

Well, I'm against gay marriage, but I would not hesitate to hire someone who was LGBT (but I wouldn't marry them).
So I don't see how that is a contradiction.

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

Translation: I would never hire someone who is so closed minded that they dare share their own beliefs about something as black and white as the morality of who should be able to marry whom.

I don't care either way but wow......

[flcath]

You'll be fine. As said countless times ITT, the 2nd Amendment thing is fine--no big deal at all.

The gay marriage thing is slightly more problematic, but you're overestimating the amount of shit that firms will impute to you without explicit evidence (e.g., an article written by you entitled Why Gays Are Unnatural Freaks and Should be Killed).

I wouldn't even bother bringing it up in an interview (to run away from it) personally.

[Bildungsroman]

Just don't apply to Jenner.

[A'nold]

You'll be fine. As said countless times ITT, the 2nd Amendment thing is fine--no big deal at all.

The gay marriage thing is slightly more problematic, but you're overestimating the amount of shit that firms will impute to you without explicit evidence (e.g., an article written by you entitled Why Gays Are Unnatural Freaks and Should be Killed).

I wouldn't even bother bringing it up in an interview (to run away from it) personally.

This. To be honest, I'm about 90% sure most firms would never find these articles anyway.

[flcath]

You'll be fine. As said countless times ITT, the 2nd Amendment thing is fine--no big deal at all.

The gay marriage thing is slightly more problematic, but you're overestimating the amount of shit that firms will impute to you without explicit evidence (e.g., an article written by you entitled Why Gays Are Unnatural Freaks and Should be Killed).

I wouldn't even bother bringing it up in an interview (to run away from it) personally.

This. To be honest, I'm about 90% sure most firms would never find these articles anyway.

I agree.

As an anecdote: I regularly post on a well-known law school discussion forum--under a pseudonym, but with a fucking picture of myself at the left margin--where I'm a total asshole and regularly shit on the legal profession and its regulatory bodies. This has had zero consequences for me.

[Anonymous User]

Well, many groups are anti gay marriage (AA, latinos, othodox jews, catholics, etc.). Socal firms have plenty of clients and partners who were on the Yes on 8 side (more than half of the voters voted against gay marriage). They don't care. Gay and anti-gay partners are also not stupid enough to politicize their beliefs. It is all about being professional and dealing with a broad grouop of clients with different leanings.

I think the big deal is to not be a jerk about it. Don't stand there and say crap that will offend others. This is also true for other groups whose feelings tend to piss of segments of the population (both sides of abortion, environmentalists, dogmatic/disrespectful of others' beliefs religious people, feminists, gun people, occupiers/blatantly anti-corporate people, etc.).

[A'nold]

Well, many groups are anti gay marriage (AA, latinos, othodox jews, catholics, etc.). Socal firms have plenty of clients and partners who were on the Yes on 8 side (more than half of the voters voted against gay marriage). They don't care. Gay and anti-gay partners are also not stupid enough to politicize their beliefs. It is all about being professional and dealing with a broad grouop of clients with different leanings.

I think the big deal is to not be a jerk about it. Don't stand there and say crap that will offend others. This is also true for other groups whose feelings tend to piss of segments of the population (both sides of abortion, environmentalists, dogmatic/disrespectful of others' beliefs religious people, feminists, gun people, occupiers/blatantly anti-corporate people, etc.).

You're good man. You just named so many of the types of people that piss me off. I'm so average.

[Pretzel_Logic]

I have the exact same name as a penthouse model (not saying what it is ha), which has not caused me any issues despite a unique last name. I wouldn't worry so much.

[A'nold]

Because of this article I looked up my name and every single possible combination of personal things that I could think of like law school, undergrad, high school, jobs, etc. and there is about a .00001% chance anyone could ever find anything about me online, haha. I think my name (first and last together) is actually the most common name in the entire country right now according to different websites.

[wiseowl]

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

So, anyone who closely adheres to a major religion? As long as they respect their colleagues in the office who cares?

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

[flcath]

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

So, anyone who closely adheres to a major religion? As long as they respect their colleagues in the office who cares?

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

This is probably true. Bear in mind even the Clarence Darrow of our day (Paul Clement) had to depart his BL firm over SSM issues.

However, the chances of the firm even finding out are slim, and this is not the type of thing where guilt by association is assumed.

[Anonymous User]

I went back and read some of the articles I wrote. They aren't that bad. Most of them are rather banal and procedural, along the lines of "Pew Research Poll shows that more Americans than ever oppose gay marriage, but the media goes out of their way to distort this" blah blah blah. Or, horror of horrors, "General Pace is fired for being anti-gay, but the media try to cover up the real reasons."

However, my semi-benign research on media coverage is quoted by some anti-gay organizations, like Baptist Press as part of longer articles that are more virulently anti-gay than anything substantively attached to my name.

At any rate, it's clear I'm on the record as being against gay marriage. I am looking into that reputation defender site, and I created a two-paragraph blog post explaining my "evolution" that I am trying to get to the top of Google.

[Anonymous User]

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

So, anyone who closely adheres to a major religion? As long as they respect their colleagues in the office who cares?

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

This is probably true. Bear in mind even the Clarence Darrow of our day (Paul Clement) had to depart his BL firm over SSM issues.

However, the chances of the firm even finding out are slim, and this is not the type of thing where guilt by association is assumed.

If the firm googles me, they'll find out. I have a unique name. The gun articles and fill most of the first page, but towards the bottom, there's something from Baptist Press against gay marriage quoting me by name. Then, there's an extremist whose blog about "explosives, guns, etc." by a "redneck farm boy" quotes my gun articles by name repeatedly. The gun articles themselves are barely political -- the big one was about gun laws and gun violence in other countries -- it's the people who quote them that scare me.

[flcath]

At any rate, it's clear I'm on the record as being against gay marriage. I am looking into that reputation defender site, and I created a two-paragraph blog post explaining my "evolution" that I am trying to get to the top of Google.

For reasons that I won't go into in detail about here, I would not suggest Reputation Defender. Nor would I recommend your other idea of putting out a mea culpa for mass consumption.

Dude: Streisand effect. Don't forget it.

[SemperLegal]

Apparently I have a name that is commonly used in Star Wars fan fiction. As long as there are still parent's basements, no recruiter will every find me.

[concurrent fork]

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

So, anyone who closely adheres to a major religion? As long as they respect their colleagues in the office who cares?

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm a bit confused:
(1) Why does not supporting gay marriage = not supporting diversity? My understanding is that many people believe that marriage is a religious term meaning a male/female relationship. This doesn't necessarily make them "anti-gay" or homophobic.

(2) And if we say you shouldn't hire someone who has stated in the past that they don't support gay marriage, does that mean you also shouldn't hire someone who has said they don't support AA? How about abortion? I just don't think these beliefs are an appropriate basis for hiring decisions.

[fatduck]

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

So, anyone who closely adheres to a major religion? As long as they respect their colleagues in the office who cares?

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm a bit confused:
(1) Why does not supporting gay marriage = not supporting diversity? My understanding is that many people believe that marriage is a religious term meaning a male/female relationship. This doesn't necessarily make them "anti-gay" or homophobic.

(2) And if we say you shouldn't hire someone who has stated in the past that they don't support gay marriage, does that mean you also shouldn't hire someone who has said they don't support AA? How about abortion? I just don't think these beliefs are an appropriate basis for hiring decisions.

"i don't think blacks should be able to marry. i'm not racist or anything, and i'm all about diversity. it's just that marriage is a religious term meaning a union between whites. i don't have anything against black people, though."

[Band A Long]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm a bit confused:
(1) Why does not supporting gay marriage = not supporting diversity? My understanding is that many people believe that marriage is a religious term meaning a male/female relationship. This doesn't necessarily make them "anti-gay" or homophobic.

(2) And if we say you shouldn't hire someone who has stated in the past that they don't support gay marriage, does that mean you also shouldn't hire someone who has said they don't support AA? How about abortion? I just don't think these beliefs are an appropriate basis for hiring decisions.

Both of these propositions may be debatable or fodder for a philosophic dialogue, but OP just seems to be trying to cover his bases so he/she doesn't get dinged out of the resume pile after a google search of his/her name. Using one's resume as a platform for arguing political semantics etc. is probably a bad idea

[Bildungsroman]

"i don't think blacks should be able to marry. i'm not racist or anything, and i'm all about diversity. it's just that marriage is a religious term meaning a union between whites. i don't have anything against black people, though."

Analogy is specious, breh.

[fatduck]

"i don't think blacks should be able to marry. i'm not racist or anything, and i'm all about diversity. it's just that marriage is a religious term meaning a union between whites. i don't have anything against black people, though."

Analogy is specious, breh.

ignore that post, i was just trying to increase my racist google footprint

[wiseowl]

I, on the other hand, would not want to hire someone who is on the record being anti-gay marriage.

So, anyone who closely adheres to a major religion? As long as they respect their colleagues in the office who cares?

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm a bit confused:
(1) Why does not supporting gay marriage = not supporting diversity? My understanding is that many people believe that marriage is a religious term meaning a male/female relationship. This doesn't necessarily make them "anti-gay" or homophobic.

(2) And if we say you shouldn't hire someone who has stated in the past that they don't support gay marriage, does that mean you also shouldn't hire someone who has said they don't support AA? How about abortion? I just don't think these beliefs are an appropriate basis for hiring decisions.

I really, really don't want this thread to derail. But really, #1? You're at a summer associate lunch with a gay partner or associate. You're at a client meeting or a trade show, and the contact you've just made is gay. Important: you may not know this upon first meeting them.

Would you say to that person, to their face, "ya know, I don't think you should get married. If you should happen to get sick, I don't think your partner should get to visit you in the hospital in some states. If you should die without a will, I think your long term partner should get nothing and your estate should go to your parents, who lets face it, haven't been very supportive. I'm not so sure you should get to adopt kids at all, but in case you manage to pull that off, if you should die, I think your kid should be put into foster care instead of staying with your partner - their other parent. But don't get me wrong bro, I am all for gays! Now, how much business were we gonna do today?"

One of the things you have to find out before you leave law school is no clients, no job. Whether your personal beliefs are well-founded, well-meaning, or based in religion is pretty much 100% irrelevant.

[dudeimsocool]

shit, better go delete my comments on Santorum's wall

[Kikero]

It's maybe 10% about "behavior in the office" and 90% about clients. Corporate clients these days are very diversity-focused; some firms even don't get hired at all if they aren't diverse enough. What if the OP is put on a matter where the client contact is gay? Awkward at the least.

Chances of this realistically mattering are low. But I think the OP is right to be concerned. Not sure how I would proceed.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm a bit confused:
(1) Why does not supporting gay marriage = not supporting diversity? My understanding is that many people believe that marriage is a religious term meaning a male/female relationship. This doesn't necessarily make them "anti-gay" or homophobic.

(2) And if we say you shouldn't hire someone who has stated in the past that they don't support gay marriage, does that mean you also shouldn't hire someone who has said they don't support AA? How about abortion? I just don't think these beliefs are an appropriate basis for hiring decisions.

I really, really don't want this thread to derail. But really, #1? You're at a summer associate lunch with a gay partner or associate. You're at a client meeting or a trade show, and the contact you've just made is gay. Important: you may not know this upon first meeting them.

Would you say to that person, to their face, "ya know, I don't think you should get married. If you should happen to get sick, I don't think your partner should get to visit you in the hospital in some states. If you should die without a will, I think your long term partner should get nothing and your estate should go to your parents, who lets face it, haven't been very supportive. I'm not so sure you should get to adopt kids at all, but in case you manage to pull that off, if you should die, I think your kid should be put into foster care instead of staying with your partner - their other parent. But don't get me wrong bro, I am all for gays! Now, how much business were we gonna do today?"

One of the things you have to find out before you leave law school is no clients, no job. Whether your personal beliefs are well-founded, well-meaning, or based in religion is pretty much 100% irrelevant.

It's the saying it to their face that would be the problem, not the belief itself. I think most people have certain beliefs that would offend other people if they are expressed in certain situations, but a reasonable person wouldn't talk about that stuff at work.

For example, I'm religious (not anti-gay marriage for the record ). I have tons of friends who are atheist. I don't care if a person is an atheist. I don't even care if a person thinks people who believe in God are irrational and has written articles "refuting" my religious beliefs. So long as when I'm interacting with that person they are polite and don't go out of their way to shit on my beliefs and start inane arguments with me, we'll get along fine. Similarly, I'm not going to make a big deal about my faith and I'm not going to say that "you're going to Hell" or stupid crap like that.

So in application to OP's situation:

1. OP says his opinion has changed, that doesn't really matter. Be anti-gay marriage or homophobic if you want, just keep your opinions to yourself.

2. It sounds like everything OP wrote was reasonable and statistics based. He wasn't writing "OMG gayz are evil!!!!" he was saying that public opinion is against gay marriage, etc. People have a right to disagree about things, if what OP wrote was reasonably professional it won't matter. Since his writing is published by another group that obviously has an agenda, OP could plausibly just be a writer hired to write an article that doesn't even particularly reflect his beliefs.

3. People might not even find those articles. They will probably drop off the front page of your Google results as time goes by, especially if you continue to manage your "internet profile." Don't acknowledge them or bring attention to them. If you are hosting a website just to make a statement that your opinions have changed, don't do that. Use your website as a virtual resume or something like that. The point should be to promote yourself and push the junk you wrote down in the results, not to draw attention to it and admit that you are the person who wrote the stuff.

[kaiser]

Gay marriage is not a good vs. Bad or right vs. Wrong debate. Not supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you are intolerant or against diversity or anything like that. So Im not sure why it would be an issue at all if you previously didn't support it, but now do.

[abc12345675]

If someone doesn't want to hire you because of your political beliefs, well then they are as ignorant as people with racist/homophobic etc views. When did political views become a "right" and "wrong" debate? If there was a right and wrong we wouldn't have different views, everybody would just pick the right one.