[xzins]

I'm torn on this one, but it is true that it is a private company.

It raises the question of what a company can require of an employee. Can they require anything and there can be no protest because they are a private concern?

There are discrimination laws. It says they cannot discriminate on the basis of age, sex, religion, handicap....they didn't say "sexual orientation" in the past. Apparently, they have eliminated the anti-discrimination provision based on religion.

It sounds as if you are now allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. Either that or they have listed those in a hierarchy of concerns such that if the choice is between age and sex, then a company can discriminate on the basis of sex if it is in contention with an age issue. For example, if we have a hiring pool of males and females, but the males are all elderly, then we can hire the elderly and tell the females to take a hike. Age is higher on the discrimination hierarchy than is sex.

This would mean that sexual orientation has been moved higher on the discrimination hierarchy than is religion.

[Dog Gone]

Companies can't descriminate in hiring or retaining employees based on their religion, in general, but they can restrict your expression or practice of it in the workplace. I mean, what if your religion required you to sacrifice a cat once an hour?

[Jorge]

This would mean that sexual orientation has been moved higher on the discrimination hierarchy than is religion.

I don't think so. There is nothing about this case that suggests HP now has a policy of firing people for their religion.

Or that sexual orientation was moved higher on the discrimination hierarchy than religion.

If a homosexual had posted opinions that were not only designed to offend Christians but intended to oppose HP's policy of employing Christians, then that would be the equivalent of what this guy did.

This guy clearly diserved to be fired.