Too bad he didn't commit a felony and hadn't disclosed that to his employeer. The left would give him a pass on that. But having a private conversation recorded over a decade ago, probably in an effort to make the guest feel more comfortable, . . . THAT'S an unforgivable transgression. If it weren't for double standards . . .
They fired him not because he did anything wrong, but because they must signal they are a good company. They did this so they don't have to face mass "online protests" through social media. I would think in a "normal" job a person may be disciplined (sensitivity training, unpaid suspensions), but not fired for what so far has been a proven "first offense".
Then again, most companies don't want to face online social media protests from 14 year old girls or get any kind of bad PR caused by the online protests, so they might just fire someone the first time. It doesn't matter to them. He seems easily replaced, as are most workers, even if they're famous.
I'm sure they made a calculated decision and determined ratings would only be hurt by keeping him employed.
excon 