Kodak fires man over 'gay' stance

WorldNetDaily ^ | Oct 24, 2002 | Joe Kovacs

[dadwags]

If Szabo has any sort of a case, don't you think there would be a tort lawyer willing to take the case on contingency ? After all, deep pockets are lawsuit bait .

[YankeeReb]

If Szabo wanted privacy he should have kept his opinion to himself and followed company policy.

Sure just like German citizens kept their opinions to themselves in 1934. Just shut up and go along. The guy showed real guts standing up to this. Why is it OK for someone to "come out" [i.e. air their sexual laundry] in public but it's not OK for someone to be offended by it?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Shareholders can console themselves for their loss of tens of billions of dollars by thanking management for their promotion of homosexuality on the way to bankruptcy.

I suspect these diversity policies are not to blame in and of themselves, but part of a larger mushiness of mind that ruins the business.

[jragan2001]

I stopped buying ALL Procter and Gamble products after
they came out against Dr. Laura's views and her then
TV show and P&G will never get another dollar out of
me again. Corporate CEO's are the biggest weak-kneed
people out there and a great deal of them have jellyfish
for spines and cave in to every left-wing interest
groups.

[jragan2001]

Amerika will eventually fall down like the Roman Empire
once did because actions like this at Kodak are just
the beginning symptoms of a falling once-great nation.

[lawdog]

And just what would that stance look like ? Sorry, I couldn't resist the headline. LOL !!

[eastsider]

Follow-up thread.

[MEGoody]

You notice you haven't heard the ACLU or any of those other liberal 'civil rights' groups stepping up to help this guy's cause.

[MEGoody]

You notice you haven't heard the ACLU or any of those other liberal 'civil rights' groups stepping up to help this guy's cause. And you never will.

[MEGoody]

"What was encouraged, by Kodak, was a code of behavior--perfectly within the powers of a private business... don't you think?"

Wrong. What was 'encouraged' by Kodak was a lot more than just tolerating it if you find out someone is gay by chance. They are 'encouraging' gay people to involve their co-workers in discussing their sexual 'preferences'. In turn,they are 'encouraging' the employees not to just tolerate someone's 'gayness' but to clap them on the back for their courage and celebrate their 'preference.'

This is way beyond what one should expect to be required of them in a corporate environment. Sexual innuendos, discussion of sexual preferences, et al do not belong in the corporate world. As a woman, I would file sexual harrassment charges against Kodak. I would like to see this guy do the same.

[MEGoody]

"What was encouraged, by Kodak, was a code of behavior--perfectly within the powers of a private business... don't you think?"

Wrong. What was 'encouraged' by Kodak was a lot more than just tolerating it if you find out someone is gay by chance. They are 'encouraging' gay people to involve their co-workers in discussing their sexual 'preferences'. In turn,they are 'encouraging' the employees not to just tolerate someone's 'gayness' but to clap them on the back for their courage and celebrate their 'preference.'

This is way beyond what one should expect to be required of them in a corporate environment. Sexual innuendos, discussion of sexual preferences, et al do not belong in the corporate world. As a woman, I would file sexual harrassment charges against Kodak. I would like to see this guy do the same.

[MEGoody]

Sorry for the double posts. I'm having some problems with Free Republic today.

[Notwithstanding]

Exactly!

Why is Kodak inviting people to bring the bedroom to work? I thought sex was a private thing?

Why do co-workers want to know who you copulate (or pseudo-copulate) with?

Idiots.