we've not heard anything from the company involved, we don't know what the bumper sticker actually said, that kind of stuff.
clearly there are some details missing.
commenting on the story is fine, it's what we do around here. my comments revolve around the notion that you have taken as gospel what this very short story reveals.
I based my comment on the following excerpt from the news story;
the employee contacted Pacific Justice Institute, a legal organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. PJI attempted to resolve the matter peacefully, first contacting and informing the employer that its actions were in violation of state and federal law. However, the California company refused to change its position and continues to ban the employee's pro-marriage message.
As a result, PJI joined with affiliate attorney Laurie Messerly in filing a federal lawsuit on the employee's behalf.
We DO know a lot more than might otherwise by the simple fact that PJI has obviously answered for itself the questions you've raised, plus a lot more I'm sure.
What's on that bumper sticker? I'd like to know too, I don't, but I'm safe in saying that PJI does, and they also know if others are allowed to have similar things in their cubicles.
Is that legal proof of lawbreaking? No, but it's safe to say PJI thinks it is, and they already know more about the case than we will ever read or know.
This all began by my objecting to someone posting before they read the article. Do I KNOW they didn't read first? No I don't, but the post showed an ignorance that suggested that.
After re-reading it, it still does.