Posted on 07/20/2005 7:57:26 AM PDT by Woodland
Attorney: Fired Allstate Employee's Trial Carries Implications for Religious Freedom
By Jim Brown July 19, 2005
(AgapePress) - There's a pre-trial hearing on Wednesday (July 20) in the case of a former Allstate employee who claims the insurance company fired him for writing an article against homosexual "marriage." The outcome of the case will likely determine whether a Christian employee can be fired for expressing his religious beliefs while off the job.
Former Allstate security manager Matt Barber recently filed a federal lawsuit against the company, alleging viewpoint discrimination. An investigation by the state of Illinois concluded that Barber was terminated because an "outside organization" complained about an article he wrote on his own time. The article defending traditional marriage appeared on several conservative Internet sites. (See earlier article)
Barber's attorney, Matt Davis, says there is a great deal riding on the outcome of the case.
"As we get more and more politically correct in our society, [large] employers like Allstate [that employ] literally hundreds of thousands ...are beginning to try to 'mellow out' the message that not only they make as a corporation, but then also then what is reflected amongst their employees," the attorney says, adding that he sees irony in the situation. "Here you have a company, in the name of tolerance, exercising an extreme degree of intolerance."
Since the state investigation, Allstate has backed off its original claim and is arguing Barber was not fired because of his conservative views. Davis says the Fortune 100 company is backpedaling.
"It would be one thing if you had a manager disseminating this kind of information to his employees and misusing the company systems or somehow on company time espousing views that they don't agree with. That would be one thing," he says. "But here we're talking about a guy from his home computer who takes a position from the Bible that he believes, and the company reaching into his living room and saying, 'We don't agree with that -- you're outta here.'"
Allstate has been a strong supporter of same-sex marriage by giving thousands of dollars in donations to homosexual activist groups. According to the American Family Association, Allstate gave $10,000 to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a homosexual organization which promotes homosexual marriage; $5,000 to the Indiana University office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Student Support Services; and $15,000 to the Gay & Lesbian Center in Los Angeles. AFA says Allstate also supports homosexual websites with advertising dollars.
In addition, the insurance company was listed by Diversity Inc. recently in its "Top 10 Companies for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Employees." Joining Allstate on that list were such household names as Eastman Kodak, Ford Motor Company, Citigroup, Pepsico, Merck and Company, and the Coca-Cola Company.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
No, but my employer's capital and his real estate are his property.
Government is telling him how he can spend his money and who he has to welcome onto his property. That's simply not right.
Perhaps you would like to use the View Replies to catch up on the conversation which has already transpired.
How sad you must be that the good old days of sweatshops, company towns, company stores, company police, workers paid in company scrip, secretaries sleeping with the boss are over.
The job may be the employer's property. But I am not.
One way to combat sodomite-friendly companies like Allstate is to buy just one share of stock and then to file a shareholder's resolution, which must appear on the ballot at the next shareholder's meeting. The ballot question would be a resolution on a question along the following line:
Be it resolved that since it is not in the Company's interest to alienate any particular market segment and in particular the segment composed of traditional families, the shareholders direct the Board to forbid any direct or indirect support of organizations or groups advocating alternative lifesyles (such as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) or any corporate image or product marketing tailored specifically to appeal to that market segment.
This brings this issue to all the shareholders when the notice of the shareholder's meeting is sent out. At that time, the Board may include its a statement of which way it recommends shareholders vote on each resolution. This forces the Board to defend the company's marketing practices.
Of course, the Board will probably state it thinks the GLBT market is an important one. I would respond that the Company cannot but help alienate the traditional value market as it overtly markets to the GLBT market and this alienation is totally unnecessary.
(Of course, had Allstate been around in 1850, they could have said that the slaveowner's market was a important one. Just because a market is important doesn't necessitate tailoring an ad campaign to it.)
If anyone can propose a better way of putting this, please post it!
I know of a company that's been known to fire commission sales people after they made a huge sale, but before the client paid, in order to not pay the commission to the (former) sales rep...
Is that a good reason?
Mark
How very disingenuous of you.
Did you even read the post of mine to which you replied? Are you really so incapable of solving any such problems without turning to your nanny state government?
Next, I suppose you're going to tell me you're a die-hard conservative who loves the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, too.
Quite true. You can leave anytime.
Better the rule of law than the whim of arbitrary tyranny. Better laws that protect my rights (and without laws to protect them rights are just words) than your kind of serfdom.
You babbled earlier about workers banding together. Yes they did. They were called labor unions to protect themselves from arbitrary tyranny over their personal lives.
Your ridiculous kind of society is one in which for most people freedom would just be an empty word.
Get this. As a California business owner, I have to allow a male employee who wants to wear a dress to work the opportunity to do so. Thanks Gray Davis.
The CA Supreme Court just ruled that if I allow ANY romantic relationships between ANY employees, I can be sued for sexual harassment because I allowed the creation of a "hostile work environment".
But if Allstate can legally get away with firing a pro-marriage guy for his writings off work hours, what's to stop me from firing the transvestite? I actually think that this may be a GOOD THING for pro-business conservatives.
The government interference into the workplace is out of control. I no longer have the ability to make personal, "gut-feel" hiring and firing decisions for my own business, even in "at-will" California, without being subject to any number of lawsuits. I'm not a government agency or a government contractor or a public company, but a private business.
Our pathetically litigious society is one where people feel like you owe them a job. I built my company, and I should be able to hire and fire whomever I please, based of course on behavior alone (not on skin color or other immutable factors).
This means that if I have an employee who's religious behavior is a detriment to the perception of my company, I should have the ability to fire that employee for their behavior, as it affects either their performance, or the perception of my company, as embodied by my employees.
So if Allstate wants to be a company that actively promotes a homosexually charged culture, should they be able to fire hetero employees who do not agree with them?
If so, then it should be the prerogative of every company that wishes to protect its hetero-normative values, to terminate GLBT employees who cannot keep their behavior out of the workplace, or where their identity is inextricably tied to their employment (i.e. a VP, a marketing or sales person, a customer service representative or agent).
Thoughts?
Suit yourself. My "ridiculous kind of society" was set up by the founding fathers. You will someday have the all-powerful nanny state you desire, and all your problems will be solved for you.
By the way, is it always your intent to play the asshole when engaging in a discussion of property rights and such or, just today?
Workers doing it for themselves ? You babbled earlier about "calling attention" to the situation. To what end ? To whine for sympathy ? Better to have laws that will give them the weapons to fight back and win.
Your babble about the Founding Fathers is ridiculous. One of the oldest principles of English law is a man's home is his castle. If the authority of the boss encompasses the employee's entire life then that cannot be true. Without the protection of the law privacy can always be trampled on by those with power.
I suppose you pine for the good old days when secretaries, mill girls, and servant girls had to sleep with the boss or hit the road. The purpose of law is not to enshrine the sacredness of capital. It is to protect the weak against the bullying of the strong. It is to put the dignity of human beings ahead of arbitrary power.
Better government than corporate power. I can vote in or out politicians. I can't vote in or out corporate culture.
Thanks for saying that Rawhide. Ohio is an "at will" state for firing and I understand a company wanting this right but if you take it to its extreme conclusion, you come up with what you had. I was thinking they could fire you for going out and eating chinese food because they HATE it or something equally as ludicrous as your examples!
The boss has no "authority" over what the worker does in his home. The worker is free to do whatever he wants in his own castle. Likewise, the employer is free to invite (or not) anyone to work in his castle. The worker is free to find suitable employment where he is welcomed. It's an arm's length transaction. If either party doesn't like what he gets, he's free to transact with someone else. No one is putting any undue restrictions on anyone.
Absolutely true. However, I doubt Allstate supports that or any other libertarian principle, so screw 'em.
It seems we're in the minority.
Oh, well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Allstate's rather vocal stance on homosexuality is one reason I won't do business with them.
Control over the livelihood of another IS restriction. It is a tremendous amount of arbitrary power. Society demands that this arbitrary power be exercised only within carefully circumscribed limits because it is the function and purpose of the law to protect the weak against the bullying of arbitrary power.
You babble about the Founding Fathers. Well, they lived in an age when physical violence was part of every authority relationship. Parents beat their children. Husbands beat their wives. Teachers whipped their pupils. Ships captains flogged their sailors. Masters beat their slaves. Conscripts ran the gauntlet. Master craftsmen beat their apprentices. I suppose that is what you would like to go back to in the name of private property rights. Well, we've moved beyond that. We have as a society and a culture rejected arbitrary authority in practically every sphere of life. And we are better off for it.
Does this mean government setting limits on private property rights ? Yes in every case.
Good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.