Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ha ha. xian asshole fired from brookstone for being homophobic

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:08 AM
Original message
ha ha. xian asshole fired from brookstone for being homophobic
whines and whines.

Massachusetts man fired from corporation over Christian belief in traditional marriage
"Same-sex marriage is the law" he was told
POSTED: October 30, 2009

A Massachusetts man was fired from a national retail corporation because of his traditional beliefs on same-sex marriage. Peter Vadala was formally dismissed from his job as second deputy manager of the Brookstone store at Bostons Logan Airport on August 12, 2009, after a supervisor reported him to Human Resources regarding an incident two days earlier.

As Peter described the incident (see video above), he came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage. When Peter asked where is he taking you for the honeymoon, she corrected him and said she was not getting married to "he" but to another woman.

Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peters discomfort with the subject of same-sex marriage, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex marriage. At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to get over it and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.

video of whining bigot asshole at link:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/vadala/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kind of a slanted article, isn't it?


From an anti marriage site no less. My initial reading I thought the woman was a bit, just a little bit, of an ass too. But then I realized this article was biased as all hell and can not be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. oh, yeah. totally horrible site and source
I posted it because of the pleasure I got from hearing the guy whine. (sorry, I didn't embed the video. I don't know how). I also think he richly deserved being canned. He's a hateful little bigot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Definitely from a bigoted anti-marriage site with a narrow minded agenda. The
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 09:22 AM by RKP5637
bigot deserved to be fired!!! All should be IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Considering that the article is written by a Holocaust Revisionist, you are correct.
You can't trust anything Michael Cameker says.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. My thought too...
The article makes it sound like she was intentionally egging him on to provoke an incident... I'm not sure what to believe, as even bigoted asses have a right to a job if they can keep their views to themselves and not let it influence their work or managment.... Seems, though that Brookstone believed him to be the one largely or totally at fault, though....Good on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Well, that's true, of course - the only reason gays want to get married
is to piss of the uptight straights, don't you know? It has nothing to do with her being excited about the most important day of her life - what straight brides seem to be incapable of not talking about their upcoming weddings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Down, please... I'm on your side. The story appears quite biased
to suggest she egged him on... Save your anger for those deserving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I know - my pissiness is not directed at you, but at the bias in the story.
In my clumsy way I was trying to support your comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. I think part of the challenge the LGBT community has is to be tolerant of those who aren't
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 09:36 AM by comtec
IF THIS IS TRUE This lady, im sorry, clearly was pushing this in this guy's face and KNEW he was uncomfortable.

IF TRUE - Honestly I think she was irresponsible, in the same way if it was the other way around.

Yes this guy is a bigoted asshole, but if he was actually doing his job, canning him for his (stupid as fuck, let me get that VERY clearly stated, he IS a bigot, and it WAS stupid of him to react to her taunting) beliefs was in fact wrong and discriminatory!

Mind you, weddings are exciting things! And any happy human will want to talk about their's.
It's also possible the suggestion that she knew the topic of a gay wedding bothering him is also just RW spin and propaganda (all he-said and no she-said).

Either way, he probably deserved to be canned for other reasons. but if this was the only reason, honestly, do you think this is going to improve his views on such.

I just feel that gloating over this guy's dismissal for nothing more than being an asshole puts us all in a bad light. In this economy, do we really want to hear about anyone being fired over such a (yes i KNOW but seriously?) trivial event?

If he was incompetent in his job, or actively worked to FIRE gay people under him, or worked to NOT employ gays, fine can the mutha fuka, but if his only crime is being a bigot...

are we not in the wrong in this case?

edit: added IF TRUE... because i realize
1- this may never have happened, and
2- it's probably slanted to look like she was provoking him.

I'm leaving my post as I originally wrote it because I think we do have to be better than "them". You can only fire bigots, if they are actively bigoting on the job. Otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion from a legal point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Um....No.
There is absolutely no reason in the world to "tolerate" bigotry. You don't "tolerate" bigotry. You confront it, and call it what it is.

After years and years and years of fucking abuse at the hands of ignorant straight people, I'm not the slightest bit interested in their "feelings". If they don't like being confronted with the fact that gay people are entitled to the same rights they are, they are free to fuck off and die.

"Tolerate their intolerance". What jackassery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. I'm sorry you feel that way because it's not going to help us "win"
however, I was unable to change my post after some additional reflection.

We do have to tolerate them, because we are better than they are.

There are better reasons to fire an asshat like this guy and I imagine there were, than he's an asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. It's Not a Game
And we don't "win" by making allowances for bigots' feelings. We "win" when it is made CLEAR to bigots that ANY instances of bigotry WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

If the woman had been black, and had "provoked" the man to the point where he called her a "n*gg*r", would that have been reason enough for you to fire him? Or is THAT kind of bigotry different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrbarber Donating Member (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. So if someone let their anti-semitism or racial bias show in a work enivorment..
Do you think ANYONE (besides rabid right wingers, of course) be clamoring to be "tolerant" of their bigotry?

And I don't believe a word from this article. It's written with an obvious bias, and posted on an anti-marriage site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. "A chilling example of what can happen to anyone."
Anyone who claims to be a Christian but is really a bigoted asshole hiding behind a faith that preaches being loving, caring, and accepting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. And there are a bunch of them like this guy, preaching love and all while
spewing hatred. Their christianity is a cover for the hatred they embody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah---the article makes it sound like she kept provoking him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. What he should have said was...
"I'm real happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but Mary had the best marriage of all time... of all time. "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Sounds like she did. So what?
I used to work next to a shrine. Have you ever seen a shrine in a cube farm? Those are the cubicles in large corporate centers that look like the inside of an old fundy woman's car. The rosary, the cross, the plastic Jesus statue, the Bible on the front seat and the one in the rear window, the garland hanging from the rear view mirror. The gilded kleenex box isn't really religious, but it's part of the display. Add an airbrush picture of whispy waspy Jesus and you have the full house.

Do you ever think about how often heterosexuals make a heterosexual reference? When was the last time a gay guy pointed to a surfer boy walking by, elbowed the stranger standing next to him and said, "I'd like to hit that, how about you?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. would you be as sympathetic if he was provoked to spew racist
comments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CurtEastPoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. If taken at face value, this makes me uncomfortable.
We can't stop people from feeling how they feel. It sounds like the guy was goaded into reacting in a way that the woman wanted, so she could 'get' him. If he were the 'attacker' or if he made disparaging remarks immediately in reaction to her revelation then I think she might be justified. This isn't the way we can get more folks on our side. This is exactly the argument the fundies will use: we can't believe what we want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
42. They can believe whatever they want
They just can't spew it all over the place. None of us can.

Suppose the guy was a virulent racist. He has the right to have those beliefs, but he doesn't have the right to go spouting them around the workplace and making things uncomfortable (or even unbearable) for everyone else). Same if he hated women, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.

Christians loathe the fact that they can't exude anti-gay vitriol absolutely everywhere. They like to claim they're being "persecuted" by anti-discrimination laws and workplace regulations that prevent them from targeting us in the workplace. But those same laws protect them from people who would discriminate in their direction. They always forget that. Anti-discrimination laws and workplace policies are in place for a reason, and they protect everybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
73. sorry - you can't defend ANYthing he says. I'm Christian, but this sick young man said,
"like all REAL Christians, we see homosexuals as sinners that need told the truth" - number one, he's judging her spiritually, she could VERY well consider herself a Christian.

number two, it's legal in that state - so, it'd be akin to him telling her, if she said she was marrying the man that just came in, who was black, and he said, "I'm sorry, you shouldn't be marryin a black man - that's against God" (like some people believe), then he deserved to be fired for workplace harassment. Even if it wasn't legal in MASS, it's still workplace harassment as stated by the company in their rules. He can HAVE his bigotry in his heart - but he sure as hell can't show it.


God bless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. The termination letter is a masterpiece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. It Sure Is.
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 11:01 AM by Toasterlad
And those posting here how sorry they are for the innocent bigot who was goaded by the evil, evil lesbian, need to fucking read it. This asshole deserved to be canned. I hope he can never find another job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Because hating them is going to make us look and feel sooo much better about ourselves
No one here is feeling sorry for him.

But we have to be better than his ilk, or we are his ilk!

And I for one don't want anything to do with these non-existent-minded bigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. That is nonsense.
No one is "hating". He got fired for creating an unsafe workspace. Problem solved. He can work somewhere else or start his own business, free to have any opinion he cares to have. Don't make him a martyr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. "Better Than His Ilk"
We ARE better than his ilk. At least *I* am. But "tolerating" their bigotry is not "being better than them". It's letting them get away with bigotry.

Frankly, I don't give a shit whether you approve of my anger or not, and I DAMN sure don't give a shit if any ignorant, bigoted bookstore fuck is offended by me calling him on his bigotry, and rejoicing that he got justifiably terminated.

Straight bigots are NOT victims. They should NEVER be treated as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
22. Oh this is just what we need not to be public...
For years they've been complaining about the negative affects of us getting to marry. Now they actually have a negative effect. Whether or not someone should be allowed to be fired based solely on their beliefs is horrifically in violation of the laws and beliefs this nation was founded on.

If he harassed her that would be one thing. Maybe he did. (Even hopefully he did, because it makes him wrong and the firing right.) But all I have to go on his this POS article from a POS organization. I'll repeat, before I get flamed, if he harassed her he deserves to be fired.

However, if he was fired simply because of his belief that she shouldn't be allowed to marry another woman, regardless of the FACT that this belief is bigoted and wrong, he should not be fired. I remember plenty of times throughout our history that we as a nation have discriminated against people because of their chemical make up and because of their beliefs. "Irish need not apply." "Whites only." Any number of discriminations against non-heterosexual couples including insurance benefits and right to attorney.

I'd like to see a different "news" source's take on this. Oh yeah... and I'd like to see far fewer postings from THAT group on this site. :+
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. He Was Fired Because He Violated His Company's Equality Policy.
If you don't want to work for a company that respects the rights of gay people, DON'T FUCKING WORK FOR ONE. If you do, don't be surprised if you get canned for violating company policy when you tell someone that you "don't agree with their lifestyle", and tell someone else that you "hate people like that".

I wonder what all you apologists would have to say if the woman had been black and he told her that he didn't agree with allowing her to marry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. You are confusing an attempt to have an airtight case with an apology
has A N Y one here even suggested he was anything but a bigoted asshole?

I suggest you come back after a day and re-read what is actually posted.

My only concern is that he was fired for air-tight legal reasons.
I was only going by what was in the posted story, and yes that was my fault. I should have looked farther than what was posted.

and i truly empathize with you and i do agree.

You do get that we are ALL on the same side and want the same thing, right?

I want all these assholes gone as much as you do, and i want it done in such a way they will NEVER have one shred of proof to hold against us!

I simply want to make sure this asshole doesn't have a legal TOE to stand on, and if he tries to bring a suit he is tossed out and sanctioned for wasting the court's time like oily taint was!

Do you get it now, I AM ON YOUR SIDE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. His Company Had Every Legal Right To Fire Him.
Did YOU read the termination letter? Brookstones was well within their rights to dismiss this piece of shit. Why would you think allowing him to spew his bigotry would NOT be grounds for dismissal, given the company's stated policy?

You may be on my side, but your attempts to turn this guy into a martyr are not appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Should a company be able to fire someone for believing something they don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. A Company Should Be - And IS - Able to Fire Someone Who Violates Their Policy
The terminated fuck demonstrated intolerance. No one told him what to think. He chose to vocalize his bigotry. Just like you can't say whatever you want on DU and continue to post here, you can't say whatever bigoted shit you want where you work and expect to keep your job.

Not sure why that's so hard for you people to understand. And I notice that no one wants to answer the question of what if this had been a BLACK issue instead of a GAY issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. I'm glad that emotional outbursts are protected speech otherwise, you'd have nothing to say.
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 04:39 PM by Fearless
Freedom of speech is a two way street. There is nothing different from the person who tries to tell the gay man that he is immoral and the person who tries to tell the straight man that he is a bigot that should be fired, CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING. This isn't an issue of right or wrong. His speech, IF NOT HARASSING is protected by the First Amendment as is the right for the woman to talk about getting married to a woman. BOTH HAVE THE SAME RIGHT UNLESS EITHER HARASS THE OTHER.

Statement of beliefs is not grounds for termination. PERIOD. If he did harass her, then yes he should be fired. If not, then the termination will be overturned in court and provide the fundies with fuel to their bigoted fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. Telling Her He Doesn't Believe She Has the Right to Get Married IS Harrassment, Clown.
Sorry to rain on your pro-bigot parade, but there IS a difference between hate speech and expressing your beliefs. And since it's perfectly legal for companies to define what is acceptable speech and what is not, and since the courts have routinely upheld that right, I think it's about fucking time that you admitted that you and your stupid argument are full of shit.

What the company did was LEGAL. Get it? Case closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Maybe you should go back to my original statement instead of getting all pre-teen on me.
I said if harassment exists he deserved to be fired. I also said I want to see a source better than Mass fucking Resistance. Why is that difficult to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Emotional outburst... seven or so...
I said that I wanted to collect the facts by seeing a reputable source or two. What part of that can't you understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. "I wanted to collect the facts by seeing a reputable source or two"
Then stop whining and go DO it. Who's stopping you? And while you're doing it, you might want to consider the fact that since the source in the OP is, by your own admission, disreputable, and you AGREE with what they're saying, it's unlikely that if you find a REPUTABLE source, you're going to be able to further your ludicrous argument.

Sorry that we live in a country where you can be fired for speaking bigotry to your co-workers. As I said, you might want to consider other options for your living arrangements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. I would say that he has the right to disagree but...
Not the right to harass her.

What would you say if the CEO of Fox said that he didn't want gay people working for them? What if a US Army General said that he/she didn't want gay people in the army?

That's right, they would be wrong. The same as anyone who doesn't want anti-gay people working for them. So long as there is no harassment, there is nothing wrong. If there is harassment, I'll repeat myself again, there is NO QUESTION that they should be fired.

BUT it is a slippery slope to fire people based on their beliefs. Call me an apologist all you want, but the fact is that I don't want to be fired for my belief that all people should be afforded equal rights either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. He Wasn't Fired Because Of What He Believed. He Was Fired For Violating Company Policy.
Specifically, creating an atmosphere of intolerance.

The fact that you are comfortable equating the bigotry of the military's anti-gay policies with a private companies rules of intolerance speaks volumes about you. In your mind, apparently, hate speech should be perfectly legal on the job. I hope that you have no people working under you. You'd be a terrible, terrible boss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. You have to learn to differentiate between emotional responses and logical responses.
I'm glad that you are not my lawyer.

Hate speech is not allowed. HOWEVER, him saying that his religion does not support marriage equality, is protected speech, so long as it is NOT HARASSING IN NATURE. If you read my original statement you will see that I said I wanted to SEE ANOTHER (LESS BIASED) SOURCE citing this event. I need to see this citation before I will decide if he is wrong or right. Like I said, the appearance of HARASSMENT is the only thing that justifies the termination. It IS possible that he harassed her and it is possible that it is a misapplication of a zero-tolerance policy.


Incidentally are you trying to provoke me? Hurt me? Personal attacks are not acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Did you read the Letter of Termination?
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/vadala/Brookstone_letter.pdf


In addition, Peter, the Sales Associate who was working with you at the time of Ms. XXX's visit has provided a written statement indicating that while she did not witness the conversation between you and Ms. XXX, you did tell her late they knew "XXX is marrying another woman" and that you "hate people like that."


You dont have a problem with a co-worker telling other co-workers they hate you because of who you are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. As I said...
if his actions constitute harassment then he should be fired.



Incidentally the "her" referred to in your quotation appears to be DIFFERENT than the woman getting married. There appears to be the man who was fired, a Peter the associate, a Ms. XX the "Store Sales Manager", and a Ms. YY the woman at the store receiving programming equipment and who was marrying a woman. It appears that the "her" in your quotation is the Store Sales Manager. If this is true, his statement is not legally of a harassing nature and he cannot be fired for expressing a belief. It does not create a hostile working environment in intent. It was a statement of belief. Free speech is protected, unfortunately in theory, but thankfully as usually the alternative is us GLBTQ'ers being ruled against.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. That is not expression of belief
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 05:07 PM by FreeState
It does not matter who he said it to (in this case it was another worker) its harassment - telling other people you work with you hate someone that you work with because they are gay is creating a work environment that is hostile towards the person period.

Constitutional free speech is not covered when you are at work for a private company and there is lots of case law to back that up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Cite legal cases then...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #49
65. Googles your friend but heres some links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
54. "Free speech" only applies when the government is trying to
stifle free speech of citizens/employees. A private employer is not restrained by the 1st amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. I direct you back to the statement I wrote to which you've responded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.
You wrote:

"Free speech is protected, unfortunately in theory, but thankfully as usually the alternative is us GLBTQ'ers being ruled against."

What I replied with was that free speech is a restriction on government action through the 1st amendment, and thus not applicable in private sector employment - which is what the OP is about. What I am trying to say is that free speech is NOT protected in private employment situations, neither in theory nor reality.

What in you statement did I miss?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. So after emotional outburst comes belittling... I stand by what I originally said...
If harassment occurred he deserves what he got. If not, he doesn't. I want to see a better source than the POS cited. (No offense to the OP.) As for the legality, as I said, harassment must be proven. If you want me to look up the legal definition of harassment I will, it will however have to wait until the weekend. I've got work to do that's far more pressing than coddling your beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SacredCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
29. If an article on massresistance.org declared that grass is green and the sky is blue...
I'd go check before I took their word for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
31. The workplace banter often gets employees in trouble - and rightly so.
As a union rep for a .gov union (so lots of due process and 1st amendment issues not in play in the OP) I see it all the time. I believe given the "facts" we have in this matter that the firing was justified. However, I would like to put out a couple of hypothetical situations (based on several disciplinary review hearings I participated in) that modify the OP's version of events and see what people think. For both hypos the facts as relayed above up to the point where he makes the statement about "he" taking her on her honeymoon are the same.

1) She responds back " Oh no, I am marrying a female. I am so glad MA changed their law and I don't care what those fundy bigots think!" He does not respond and calls HR. Would it then be OK to fire her for violation of the companies zero-tolerance policy as to bias based on religion (it is included in their policy per the copy of the termination letter)?

2) She responds back "Oh no, I am marrying a female. I am so glad MA changed their law and I don't care what those fundy bigots think, aren't you?" And he responds back saying "No, homosexuality is against my religious beliefs, deviant and an abomination against God!" Both call HR. Should one or both of them be fired? Or is it "offsetting fouls"?

These are the types of cases I have to deal with on an all to regular basis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Religion Should NEVER Be Equated With Sexual Orientation.
Religion is a choice. Sexual Orientation is not. Religion should be fair game for ridicule and contempt.

However, if the company's policy forbids religious intolerance, then the woman would be violating policy and could be terminated. The bigoted breeder should be terminated regardless of what the woman said. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. The religous would say that it is not a choice actually.
Granted I'm an atheist... what could I possibly know...

Terms like "bigoted breeder" definitely start to paint a picture about the intolerance that you breed as well. Don't hate the person, dislike the position. Otherwise, we fuel their hatred of us. They're not going to stop of their own accord, so we must break the cycle of hate. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. Emotional Outburst number... what six now?
I will tell anyone that it is wrong to hate. I don't care if you're Black or White, gay or straight, rich or poor, pro-equality or anti-equality. Hate is wrong. Period.


You may not like it. It is certainly instinctive to lash back at one that hates you, but it is not right. Hate begets hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuadrado Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
67. Neither is quite a choice.
As another atheist, I don't think religion is a choice either. Mutable yes, but that does not entail that it's a choice.

I could not choose, for example, to believe that the moon is made of cheese. At best I could pretend this is so. Similarly, I could not choose to become a Muslim or Christian or what have you.


What's more, many anti-gay organizations like the Catlick Church do not deny that sexual orientation is immutable, but claim that acting on one's urges is wrong (if you're gay, anyway). This is a self-consistent position. That is, if someone has an innate, immutable urge to do something wrong, there's nothing wrong with holding them to a standard that requires them to deny that urge. The problem here is that there's no convincing argument that there's anything wrong with gay relationships or sex. And there definitely is something wrong with trying to get people to deny what will make them happy if it's not violating the rights of someone else.


Finally, what's so bad about hating people? The threshold for hating them should certainly be higher than that for hating their ideas and beliefs, but there should also be a finite limit. Some people really are evil, repugnant monsters and deserve to be hated. More people are just mildly disgusting, but have deeply repugnant beliefs often stemming from puerile superstitions. It looks like the guy in the video falls into this category.

I don't hate him, but I view him with a great deal of contempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Very good post! Thought provoking ...
and welcome to DU! I am new here as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuadrado Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Thankee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-03-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. But Many People DO Chose To Believe In God, When There's No Evidence He Exists
How is believing in god not a choice? It's certainly not a characteristic you're born with. Just because YOU don't believe in god, doesn't mean others can't choose to do so. In fact, they DO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
53. I understand and agree that they are not equal as inherent traits.
However, almost all non-discrimination policies include religion as a protected class. Would ridicule and contempt of Wiccas, Muslims, Jews, etc. be OK in your book IN THE WORKPLACE? (emphasis added for clarification)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. It Would ABSOLUTELY Be Okay In MY Workplace.
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 05:47 PM by Toasterlad
Sadly, I don't run a workplace. If I did, belittling religion would be REQUIRED.

Additionally sadly, as you say, almost all non-discrimination policies include religion as a protected class. Therefore, you may not utter hateful anti-religion speech at work if your company has one of those inclusive non-discrimination policies. Which I don't, because mine does.

However, you can't use your religion as an excuse for your bigotry, just because no one's allowed to attack your religion. If your religion compels you to be hateful to innocent people, like, say, christianity does, then you'd best find a job where being hateful due to religion is cool. Because it's not in the vast majority of places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. That is so disgusting... Don't hate gays, hate the religious? WTF? I'm done talking to you.
You are just as bad or even worse than anti-gay people. At least most of them hate out of ignorance, you hate out of what? Spite?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Again, we agree - you can't use your religion to discriminate/
harass another protected class. I asked the 2nd hypo (where both are in violation) as that is what usually happens - both employees get in a pissing match and say things they shouldn't. Usually what happens (in my workplace only) is that they are both given a choice - you can both have the same punishment for the same infraction or you can drop it and walk away with just a LOR. Only once in 6 years did an employee choose to take the 2 week suspension (FYI it was a Jehovah's Witness with a husband who had a good job) and make the other get the same suspension (lesbian single mom) just to prove her point. All get letters of reprimand for their files even if they agree to "walk away".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. That Sounds a Little Unfair.
If one party is willing to apologize, and accept the LoR, I don't see why THEY should be punished if the other party is too stubborn to apologize for their actions.

In any case, as much as I enjoy indulging in it on the internet, in the workplace, grownups are expected to deal with adversity in a grown-up fashion, not respond in kind. If both are slinging mud, both should be held accountable...but I still maintain that if one is willing to apologize and the other is not, it's unfair to punish them equally. Regrettable things get said in anger, and it's only fair to give people a change to atone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. it is an equal protection / disparate treatment problem
again, one of the peculiar issues when dealing with public sector union issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuadrado Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
66. Flagrant hypocrisy
It's kind of funny how he first talks about how he told her that he thinks "homosexuality is bad stuff" and then goes on to say that controversial things shouldn't be discussed in the workplace at all. Hmmm, ya might want to try harder there Pete.

And this is to say nothing of the ridiculousness of expecting someone to say nothing about an upcoming marriage. "Sorry, ma'am, your relationship is simply too controversial to be discussed in polite company."

Granted, firing seems a bit extreme to me if what the article says is true.

That said, I don't trust the source site for a second. Their goal is obviously to drum up fear. They want to suggest that allowing gay marriage will inevitably result in religious coercion, and they're desperate to create this impression any way they can. Maybe the engaged manager was out of line or deliberately provoking him, but so far we've only heard one side of the story, and it's obvious what the storyteller's motivations are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
71. If he doesn't like the laws of Massachusetts he can go live someplace else
Like one of the 45 other states that disallow gay marriage.

I hear Maine is welcoming people with such views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
72. too close to 'home' for me - this reminds me of my former close friend, who turned on me & called my
being Gay, "against God". For over a year this close friend supported me in everything I did, defended me in public, but somewhere along the way, this friend's minister started teaching that "homo-sex-shulls" were not following God's will. Little did it matter that I had sat and went over the many arguments against the "clobber passages" (as the verses in the bible are called that are claimed to decry Gay relationships) with this friend, who told me at one point, "there's no denying - you don't choose who you love fall in love with".

So, when my friend turned on me, I wanted to not exist for a while. Thankfully, God brought me peace about man's judgment.



I pray for this man in the story to find the LOVE of Christ, not the judgment of man..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
74. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Good morning Peter.
How's the job search going? :eyes:

I hope you are also avoiding mixed fibers and not eating shellfish. Otherwise, Satan is coming for ya! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 20th 2021, 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC