Protests About Gay Tolerance Spark Wider Workplace Debate

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-30-2002 | JAMES BANDLER

[schu]

Eastman Kodak Co.'s recent firing of an employee who criticized a company initiative on behalf of gay workers has touched off a rancorous debate between proponents of corporate diversity and free expression.

The dispute echoes recent ones at companies including AT&T Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. in which workers alleging they were disciplined for opposing policies advocating gay acceptance have sued, claiming violations of their rights to religious expression.

[schu]

Political Correctness gone crazy. The clear message is, submit to our views or you will be fired.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

If I were to point out a single, seemingly insignificant, but important sign that America had turned down the road to ruin, it would be when personnel clerks were replaced by HR professionals.

Working has sucked ever since.
Now instead of developing new products and driving for efficiency, we are forced to get in touch with other people's "sensitivities."

Ugh!

[Kenton]

." The memo, forwarded by a supervisor, suggested ways to make "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered" workers feel more comfortable discussing their sexual orientations.

Discussing anything related to their sexual preference is totally off-limits to heterosexual males in corporate America. Why do they think that heterosexual people should be subjected to discussions of personal sexuality in the workplace, when they would consider any straight person openly discussing sexual preferences to be creating a hostile workplace?

[schu]

Excellent point, like much of Liberalism the internal contradictions are so glaring that they cannot even see them.

What to you think the reaction in your office would be if HR sent out emails talking about your individual preferences?

[reasonseeker]

If a supposedly "private" organization like the Boy Scouts has the right to institute a policy that excludes gays, then any other private organization should have the same right to exclude anyone who refuses to abide by their policy.

[RonF]

This is the second time I've seen this posted. This time I read it more carefully. The mistake this man made was to hit the "Reply to All" button, instead of the "Reply" button when he wrote the e-mail in the first place. I have seen people in my company disciplined for sending out completely non-controversial information in mass mailings without prior authorization, so the fact that this person was disciplined for sending out a controversial personal opinion is not surprising.

And yes, I realize that the HR mass mailing was controversial, but that's life in the big company. If you don't like company policies, you can quit. Your free speech rights stop at the company door. The corporation may be wrong to promote acceptance of homosexuality, but they have the right to be wrong.

[GeekDejure]

If I were to point out a single, seemingly insignificant, but important sign that America had turned down the road to ruin, it would be when personnel clerks were replaced by HR professionals.

Personally, I find the assinine lable 'Human Resources' very offensive !!! Dammit, I am NOT a HUMAN RESOURCE . . . I am a HUMAN BEING . . . a fact that these corporate employment monkeys can't seem to handle !!!

[eastsider]

F.Y.I. (Link to prior thread.)

[SkyPilot]

"He was not asked to admit that his opinions were wrong, but to acknowledge the way he communicated them was inappropriate."

So, it was OK for the company to send out a mass indoctrination message, but inappropriate for him to respond in kind?

In the world of "Diversity", all views are "equal"--no? Except, we learn that as in Totalitarian Communism, some views are more equal than others.

[WaveThatFlag]

The corporation may be wrong to promote acceptance of homosexuality, but they have the right to be wrong.

Yep. And decent-minded Americans have the right not to buy Kodak film.

[MEGoody]

Employers are treated quite differently in the law than a private organization such as Boy Scouts. I'm sure you know that and are just being silly.

[d101302]

She added: "What if he was talking about Jews or African-Americans or others protected by the Kodak policy?"

This totally illogical rhetorical technique is something we see from the liberals over and over.

Much like erecting a strawman argument then knocking it down, the liberal changes the subject of the discussion to an area where she is more likely to win. When her adversary is put on the defensive by the subject change, she hopes to somehow use that to claim victory in the original debate.

But the whole point is that we can only debate one specific subject at a time. We cannot keep changing the subject or we're just wasting the time of all involved.

The key words to watch out for are "what if". That's a signal that the liberal is trying to change the subject. A good response is simply, "But we were talking about (original subject). Let's continue to talk about (original subject)."

And if the liberal persists, simply say, "Look, I want to talk about (original subject). If we're not going to discuss (original subject), then let's (go back to what we were doing before the debate started/go ahead and do what we were planning to do next)."

Another great example of this is the handgun debate. Sometimes you'll get into a discussion with liberal about handguns and pretty soon the liberal has shifted the debate to why you want to have 3 armored divisions in your garage and an Apache gunship in your back yard. And all you wanted to talk about was handguns.

[LowOiL]

I fired off an email to Kodak and told them that I had no intentions of ever buying anything with their name on it again and that Fuji would be getting my business in the future. I also mentioned that I would be forwarding the article about this to my fellow church members and family. The sent me back an email saying that they are proud of their deverse environment and basically tough poop.

Well... this tough poop guy will stick to his guns. I hope Kodak falls flat on it's face.

We will never buy Kodak again.

[Maximilian]

This latest article is gratifying. Kodak is taking some serious heat, thanks in part to Free Republic. That previous thread included a link to the Kodak web site where you can tell Mr. Blamphin what you think about Kodak's policies. Now the Wall Street Journal is publishing the fact that numerous emails were sent, telling Kodak that they would no longer buy Kodak's products. This is very serious business for the Kodak board.

Here's the previous thread again:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/775065/posts

Here's the Kodak web site where you can send Kodak an email. Many Freepers responded last time:

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

We have made a difference already. The first story quoted Blamphin totally blowing off the possibility of a boycott or customer backlash. In this article he has changed his tune considerably.

If you haven't contacted Kodak yet, send them an email at the link above, and remember to tell them your new motto: "Buy Fuji!"

[yendu bwam]

The corporation may be wrong to promote acceptance of homosexuality, but they have the right to be wrong.

What if it's against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of their honestly held religious belief (for instance, that homosexual acts are morally wrong)?

[Irisshlass]

ok..

[txzman]

I agree that the employee was wrong in hitting the 'reply all' button. However I agree with his response and have had it with companies' draconian 'though shalt bend over' diversity messages.

I stopped buying anything Kodak or Ofoto last week. And I feel better already.

[maryz]

If I were to point out a single, seemingly insignificant, but important sign that America had turned down the road to ruin, it would be when personnel clerks were replaced by HR professionals.

Working has sucked ever since.

You said a mouthful! But I think the proper phrase is HR "professionals".

[tracer]

I hate to say it, but Kodak probably will prevail in court, if not in the marketplace.....

[tracer]

I humbly propose that hereafter we all refer to such examples of PC-related firings and other travesties as "Kodak Moments"......