US court upholds firing for anti-gay Bible quotes

Reuters via forbes ^ | 1/6/04 | Reuters

[Dave S]

That's so typical of people like you, you constantly denounce others as some sort of degenerates, perverts, etc, then when anyone sharply criticizes your side you whine like a little baby to the mods.

Aint that the truth. Last night I had one of these whiners hit abuse because in response to the statement nobody was hurt by posting, I wrote "except his wife and kids, I hope they like dog food".

[xzins]

profane, racist, or violent....

That fit none of those. They were BIBLE VERSES, for Pete's sake. If inside his cubicle, the company over-reacted.

My point is not that it is not their property. They can require the guy to type every word backwards if they want.

My point is that in forbidding personality they ultimately hurt their productivity. Find important things to oppose. In his personal space that you've assigned him allow room for reasonable diversity.

"Fundamentalists do exist," I'd say to them. "Get over it."

[TheGunny]

4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not *comprehend it. John 1:4,5

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[LibertarianInExile]

"No, he was fired for creating a hostile workplace,"

Either the law applies to all religious beliefs that don't affect productivity (and this one affects others' productivity only in the same way that his productivity was affected by the 'gays are okay' posters) or it's not a law, it's institutional power branding a particular way of thinking right. Hostile is in the eye of the beholder for everyone or no one, not just gay people.

"being insurbordinate to his superiors,"

Only by overtly refusing to agree. He could have muttered under his breath, that'd have been fine, but actually opposing their quasi-religious 'gays are okay' stance was verboten--he wasn't allowed to practice his religious beliefs, while gays were.

If HP had asked him to attend anti-gay religious sermons, and then he'd put gay pride stickers up, he'd have been fired, too--but then we would have a lawsuit some here would be proud of, and that's too bad, because they're the same case.

But why should we be happy he's allowed to mutter that homosexual behavior is wrong, if gays are allowed to say outright and in front of the boss that being against homosexual behavior is wrong? You honestly see no discrimination there?

A hostile work environment has lately been defined as ANY one that a person is offended by because of harassment for reasons of religious, sexual, or racial differences. He was obviously offended, yet management kept on despite his complaints. Yet he loses. That makes no sense given far more absurd 'discrimination' case precedents deciding otherwise, and the rash of cash settlements for far sillier.

"and trying to put a wrench in managment objectives. That will do you in every time. Management could care less what he believed. They fired him because of his ACTIONS."

Right. They fired him because he overtly disapproved of their attempt to make him join the gays-are-okay groupthink. I say if the not-so-clearly-delineated-firing-for-discrimination-case seems to consistently be decided in ways that benefit only 'oppressed' minorities, the sword isn't cutting both ways and it should.

But honestly, this case is a load of horse manure either way. Employers should be free to fire and hire whoever they want whenever they want. They also shouldn't have to worry about the EEOC or promoting this diversity horse$#!#.

[Dave S]

Gay behavior is not a religion except in the minds of religious zealots fearful that they might not be right or too sure of themselves.

[LibertarianInExile]

I concur that gay behavior might not be approved by worried religious zealots, and honestly, I don't give a rat's hiney if you want to call me gay or not, because my sexual preference is my own. You can call me a pole-smoking pirate sailing the Hershey high seas and I'll smile and continue eating my cream-filled, chocolate-covered frozen banana.

But any message approving of tolerance for gay behavior certainly stands in opposition to that of many organized religions and is in itself a religious message as a result. And I think that claiming intolerance for the other viewpoint is the same as tolerance for your own is wrong on both sides of the issue. The solution is not a silent workplace, but the imposition of rules that are fair for both sides, which essentially means employers ought to be able to fire and hire for any reason they please and not worry about a lawsuit over it.

[Looking for Diogenes]

So the first amendment does apply to private employers in some manner.

No, it doesn't. The anti-discrimination laws are based on the equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Absent arguably unconstitutional legislation, there's no reason why a company couldn't require you to renounce all religion as a condition of further employment.

I don't believe that's true. But they can ask you to not practice your religion while in the workplace.

[steve-b]

You may not like it, but HP has as much right to to not employ this fellow as B'nai Brith does to not employ a radical Islamist who insists on pinning up Koran quotes directing believers to wage war on the infidel.

[Looking for Diogenes]

From what I read, the guy objected to a "promote diversity" poster with photos of homosexuals IN his cubicle. At any rate, the article said the guy said he'd take his quotes down if they took the "gay promotion" poster down, but no go.

Employers and employees do not usually bargain like that. "I'll stop my obnoxious behavior if you'll change your business practices."

The unconstitutionality I'm referring to are laws/judicial decisions forcing acceptance or normalization of homosexuality such as the law in CA mandating "gay" friendly promotion cirriculum in public schools K-12 since 2001.

If you want to shift the discussion from private workplaces to schools, ok, but that is a totally different arena. So which article of the Constitution is being violated?

[scripter]

Post 351 has some information on the court case you might find informative.

[mcg1969]

Yes and no.

It can't be both. It's "Yes" and yes alone.

It makes a mockery of the 'diversity' term. This is CONFORMITY to the ideology of choice.

Of course it is. And that's not illegal, and it shouldn't be, in this particular context.

Would the 9th have upheld a firing of a gay employee advocating an agenda that was Liberal? ie putting up signs that said "Fight the Hetero-power, OrganizE!"

IF the employer had asked him to remove the signs, and he refused, then yes, actually I think they would have. But yes, the 9th Circus is crazy, so as clear cut as this seems they might not.

IMHO, HP and the 9th Circus are being hypocrites.

Fair enough. And my point is that HP is entitled to be. (The 9th Circus is not of course).

[little jeremiah]

Keep sexuality private. How about that for a principle?

"How about your religious beliefs too. There was a time when I was young when three topics were vorboten in public conversation/"

I don't know where you're from or when you're talking about, but a short while ago prayer was allowed in schools, mention of God was legal at graduations and other public times, Christmas was Jesus' birthday not just a generic "holiday".

But now, (in case you've been in a coma and just awakened) "gay" crap is being force fed everyone - from media, news, entertainment, schools, clubs, lawsuits, they're attempting to force their way into the military, Boy Scouts, and on and on.

In case you're just up from the coma, the 10 Commandments are being removed from parks, public buildings and displays all over the country while "gay" pride posters are being put up. The secularists - headed by the ACLU - are filing lawsuits left and right to remove every vestige of prayer or religion from everywhere except one's own closet. Religion - a relationship with God - is the love that dare not speak its name, and homosexuality is the one that won't shut up.

So what is everyone supposed to do - shut up and let the "gay" agenda take over the country? Is that your solution?

Apparently.

[little jeremiah]

If you want to shift the discussion from private workplaces to schools, ok, but that is a totally different arena. So which article of the Constitution is being violated?

"This is either a federal mandate or a preemptive move by HP to avoid a future lawsuit. It all boils down to a federal imprimatur for homosexuality that is going to affect every corporation."

As stated by Aquinasfan.

[ladyinred]

It should work both ways for sure. NO more HP for me.

[biblewonk]

I love it when Christianity gets persecuted by the world for being what it is, the truth.

[ArGee]

The employee who was fired, was not fired for his beliefs, he was fired for attempting to force his beliefs on others in contradiction to the company's objectives.

Posting a sign is not focing anything on anyone, especially when the sign is not directive in nature.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

They probably have a relatively high level of gays on their staff and they want peace among all employees regardless of orientation.

You can get that (and probably faster) without posting signs lauding perverted sex.

A sign which reads, "Diversity is our Strength?" I remember a Dilbert cartoon on another subject with a valid punchline. It said, "If you have to have a slogan for it, it must not really exist."

Shalom.

[Dave S]

So what is everyone supposed to do - shut up and let the "gay" agenda take over the country? Is that your solution?

Your screen name seems quite appropriate as you seem to be of the opinon that the sky is falling, the sky is falling, repent or all are going to hell. Your specific argument is a red hering. HP is free to set workplace rules to ensure optimum worker productivity. If some loon, wants to make it his personal crusade to piss off managment and get himself fired. So be it, but dont cloak that in Christianity or yourself as a victim. The workplace is not the spot to carry on political/religious wars.

[longtermmemmory]

Unfortunatly, matters of conscient can and do permiate the workplace laws. The 9th circus is hardly a reliable source of law.

This will be appealed. It also sounds like this case was dropped becuase the man did not docement his case enough. It is a wait game at this point for the next appeal.