Posted on 11/07/2009 11:31:23 AM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
Employee #1 approaches emplyee #2 and gives unsolicited advice:
“I think the way you are raising your children is wrong. You should not be allowing them to watch so much television, wear skimpy bathing suits while running in the sprinklers, or skip bible study on the sabbath.”
Employee #2 goes to his supervisor, and says
“I didn’t sign up for this BS when I came onboard here. Gonna do anything about this busybody?”
Well, women talk - about everything and frequently, in my experience. What if she had been talking about her son's Bar Mitzvah, or Kwanzaa, or her Passover Seder?
If he thought the conversations were inappropriate for the workplace, then he should have said so, and left it at that. But, he shouldn't have offered his moral judgment on her personal life, just like he shouldn't say that a Bar Mitzvah is immoral or Kwanzaa is racist.
The employee has a Constitutional Right to the Freedom of Religion, although it is true the place of business would not necessarily be a place to espouse those beliefs.
So, obviously, if you allow an employee to espouse her pantheistic lesbian beliefs to demean your own belief system, then that employee shouldn’t be punished for responding to the “religious” violation of the rude lesbian.
She should have been the one who was fired by harassing the Christian with her defense of immoral behavior in the guise of a fake “civil right” which allowed her to indulge in such nihilistic, socially destructive behavior.
So then,if it is not a test but a real situation,WHY is he the only one fired?Shouldn’t she be fired,too?What if a customer overheard them and she had made THEM feel uncomfortable?I just think that she sounds like a problem waiting to happen,and the company fired the wrong person.
It’s the company’s loss.
True, but he also has to make a living now.
His beliefs to him are just as valuable as her beliefs are to her - yet, lesbo has been given the green light. The Human Resource Dept should have asked the lesbo, why are you talking about your personal life while working?
He should have smelled rats earlier. She goaded him, and he took the bait. Instead, he should have said back, “You have said to me that you were married, four times in short order. Do you have a purpose in doing that?”
I would probably approach it from a different direction though, coming at an odd angle. For example, “Did you hear of that Indian city, suffering from a drought, where they married a small girl to a dog?”
Of course this compares her marriage with this Indian girl’s marriage, but does so indirectly enough so that if accused of harassment, you could respond that “she mentioned marriage four times, so I thought she wanted to talk about marriage.”
People expect to be taken on “head on”, so if you avoid doing this, you can still tear them to shreds, but still leave yourself some dodging room if you need it.
Back in 1980, our company owner and president meet with a group of new employees to orientate us to a large new project; and to the customers expectation.
When the meeting was almost over, he informed us: “Neither Titles, nor Degrees, nor experience count, in our corporation.
I thought what does count? Then He said, “Only one thing counts; “GETTING THE JOB DONE” is the only thing that counts.”
We often forget, we are there to get the job done; “On time, within the budget, to the customers satisfaction, and to make a profit.”
If we did our jobs we would not have the problems of all this other garbage.
I wonder what would’ve happened if he said her so-called “marriage” violated his “Islamic” beliefs, instead of his “Christian” beliefs?
People that work together frequently disagree.Looks like she didn’t agree with him as much as he didn’t agree with her.Fire them both,or fire nobody.The unemployment rate is over 10%.I’m sure someone will be more than happy to fill those two spots.
If he had handled it properly perhaps they could have fired her. He could have warned her and documented the events to HR.
They still may fire her,if this is any hint about how she works with people.Time will tell.
It’s easy to say - he should have done this or that. I see nothing wrong w/what he said. It’s the touchy feelie crowd, the company feeled they would be less threatened if they fired a Christian instead of a lesbo.
Hope he gets a good lawyer!
IMHO,H.R. (Wow!That’s a lot of abbreviations!) dropped the ball badly on this one.
>>Um, no. The contract is between the sovereign states and the federal government. That people were given rights was just a happy by-product.<<
Um, yeah. In describing the type of Federalism being implemented, it specifically speaks to the People. And that was reemphasized in the sadly now-lamented Amendments IX and X.
>>He said she mentioned it several times to him. As a former employer, I can tell you that she had no business bringing up her personal life to a fellow employee that she did not know. Her raising this issue surely gave him the justification to express his personal beliefs on it. She should have been repremanded. It is apparent that she was trying to goad him into saying something. I suspect that if she had simply mentioned it in passing one time, he likely would not have responded as he did.<<
Maybe yes, maybe no. But that is between the employer and the employee(s), and is not any kind of a freedom of anything issue. For the most part, the government intervenes when different standards are applied to different people. I can say “you can’t smoke” but it means ALL employees can’t smoke.
It always saddens me when people on THIS board, of all places don’t know what a “right” is nor what the USC is. Invented “rights” are what liberals create. Undermining private contracts — the basis for ALL common law — is what liberals do.
This has been the law for decades, there is no lawsuit here for him. Religious, racial or sexual discussions or preferences do not belong in a business environment. Check any work manual. Another widely known but not always published is “don’t dip your pen in the company ink”.
I don't side with the employer. She brought the issue up for separate times and "It wasn't in his job description to evaluate listen to stories of the personal lives of his co-workers."
And the story kind of sounds like she baited him into it.
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.