Kodak fires man over 'gay' stance

WorldNetDaily ^ | Oct 24, 2002 | Joe Kovacs

[Maximilian]

Thanks for the research and the info. Here's the URL in a clickable link:

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/global/en/service/contact/feedback.cgi?conf=/global/include/en/service/contact/contact.conf

[Mr. Mojo]

Yeah, it appears you're right. He did take a huge risk, and I admire him for it.

[sinkspur]

Remember how Eisner of Disney said they could do without the business of Southern Baptists and Catholics? Turned out he was wrong. Disney has tanked bad, even worse and sooner than the rest of the stock market.

Disney has tanked due to its purchase of ABC, and other ill-timed acquisitions.

Attendance at ALL theme parks is down since 9/11. Before 9/11, the Disney parks were the only thing keeping Disney from tanking completely. There is simply no evidence that boycotts by Catholics or Baptists or Mormons or anybody else contributed significantly to Disney's losses. And, Disney never said it could do without the business of those churches. I don't recall the Catholic Church ever backing a boycott, in any kind of organized way.

Large boycotts don't work because it takes a great deal of motivation, for a long period of time, for them to have even a minimal effect. And, most people don't even know about them, no matter how much a group thinks it gets its message out.

The reason to buy Fuji is that they are a dollar or two cheaper per package. Film is film; the differences come into the quality of paper used for printing (most of that is Kodak) and developing.

If a boycott of Kodak makes you feel good, by all means, do it. I haven't bought a roll of Kodak in ten years.

[Judith Anne]

Good for you, for taking a stand.

I will never knowingly purchase a Kodak product again, now that I know this.

I will also boycott anything they sponsor.

[Mr. Mojo]

I need my reading glasses ....I read 23 year 'old'.

[Hemlock]

He can be fired for any reason (excepting the usual race/religion/etc.), or no reason at all.

A good lawyer might be able to get Kodak on religious discrimination.

[muawiyah]

All of that, and he forgot the EEOC looks at sexual harrassment as a serious matter. For example, if the boss persists in having you focus on how other employees might use their sexual organs, you might well win a case against him.

[BillSharp]

But aren't they firing him because of his religious beliefs or at least for expressing his religious/moral beliefs?

[Station 51]

Howzabout respecting Szabo's privacy by understanding how little he wishes to information to be shared?

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

[IYAS9YAS]

IF Kodak IS an at-will organization, they need not give a reason...However, they did give a reason, and it does not fall within the guidlines of of the EEOC. He was fired for his stance on homosexuality (ergo his religion). I think this is where Kodak will lose.

[Hemlock]

The sexual harassment angle might work. Good thinking.

[eastsider]

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

If Szabo wanted privacy, he should have asked for it ... which he did.

[Hemlock]

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

Not if company policy violated his so-called rights.

[sinkspur]

I will just bet that if Kodak receives 20,000 + emails complaining about Kodak unwillingness to support a person's request to be removed from an offensive mailing list that they just might start changing some policies.

If Kodak receives 1,000 e-mails, it would surprise them.

If Szabo had confined his objection to the sender of the e-mail, he likely wouldn't have been fired.

Sending the e-mail to everyone on the recipient list is showing up the boss.

You never show up the boss!

[Bryan24]

NukeMan,

Mr.Solz was asked to proactively accept and, according to policy, actively work toward including people who are gay or lesbian.

I know that my religious beliefs would force me to essentially take the same stand that he did. I would not actively encourage any gays or lesbians to "come out", as that would violate my religious beliefs.

He was threatened with termination if he didn't act AGAINST his religious beliefs. I believe that is grounds for lawsuit for violation of his constitutional rights of religious freedom.

[Go Gordon]

I get a lot of email from my employer that I choose to take no action on.... I just ignore it. I don't see why this guy didn't just send this email to his "recycle bin" and leave it at that.

It wasn't just the email.It was the fact that the guy was being asked to support and befriend people who's actions were personally repulsive and repugnant to him. Does that help you understand?

[eastsider]

If Szabo had confined his objection to the sender of the e-mail, he likely wouldn't have been fired.

I agree.

[sinkspur]

If Szabo wanted privacy, he should have asked for it ... which he did.

He also blasted his response to over 1,000 people, which could come under insubordination.

He should have confined his objections to the sender of the e-mail.

If he files a lawsuit, Kodak can bankrupt him with lawyers' fees with its deep pockets.

I'll bet Szabo regrets his overreaction.

[Go Gordon]

A 23-year veteran of The Eastman Kodak Co. has been fired

How much of a 'veteran' can one be at 23?

Look again, it doesn't say 23 years old, it says a 23 year veteran - meaning he's worked there for 23 years. So to answer your question: 23!!!!

[eastsider]

He also blasted his response to over 1,000 people ... He should have confined his objections to the sender of the e-mail.

I'm totally with you. He was grandstanding.