Posted on 11/07/2009 11:31:23 AM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
A manager at a Massachusetts retail store claims he was unjustly fired after he told a colleague he thought her impending marriage to another woman was wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
no... not freedom of speech, freedom of ones beliefs
this was the guys opinion that the manager pestered him for. he was not wearing a t-shirt with a political message, sporting jewelry, didn’t have stickers on his car... he was presented a situation and rendered his opinion to the coworker/manager after the fourth time she pushed him for it (she is a liberal and wanted him gone for not believing as she did)
this would be a violation of HIS first amendment rights to freely exercise his beliefs/religion
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
“It always saddens me when people on THIS board, of all places don’t know what a “right” is nor what the USC is.”
That begs the question: Will you tell us “what a ‘right’ is”?
The fool allowed himself to be baited. I mean, why lose your job just because of some mentally ill woman? Nut jobs are easy to deal with if you know how.
He should have kept his cool and snickered. The more she brought it up, the more he should have snickered until it was almost a laugh.
If HR asked him about his snickering, he should have said he was thinking about a joke he read on the Internet. Nothing at all about the deranged lady, you see.
“No individual nor business can suppress freedom of speech. Only government can do that.”
They can if it’s laid out specifically in writing and the employee has read the document and signed an acknowledgement.
I’m with the employee on this. A peer brings up a personal matter three times and he doesn’t respond and the fourth time says he does not agree with her. I don’t see that he did anything wrong and it certainly does not even come close to rising to harrassment.
>>They can if it’s laid out specifically in writing and the employee has read the document and signed an acknowledgement.<<
That is my point. You can give away that right, but it cannot be “taken” from you. It is an important distinction.
The Lesbian clearly wanted to bait the Christian guy and also, in effect, rub her 'marriage' in his Christian face, as it were. He should have just walked away ("I'm busy") and not given the Lesbian woman the satisfaction of taunting him with her 'marriage' but he didn't and by responding to her with his honest beliefs, he's in violation of company policy and is fired. All neat and legal.
I'm sure the local gay 'community' is celebrating and blabbering about overcoming 'hate' (disapproval of homosexual behavior) but the young man did what was morally right, even if it isn't legally protected speech. I'm sure he'll deal with the consequences and go on to better things but telling his story is both informative and cautionary on more than one level.
>>That begs the question: Will you tell us “what a ‘right’ is”?<<
Since it is not a question which contains its own answer, it begs no question I can fathom. As far as raising the question, the most useful definition is that which is spelled out in the framework established by the USC and its amendments.
For example, we have lefties saying there is a “right” to health care. There is a “right” to a college education. There is a “right” to housing.
None of these are rights by any possible legal definition.
The underlying issue here is whether your Constitutional “rights” carry into a private contract. In general, the answer is “no” — in the instant case it is certainly “no.”
This is an issue to be addressed by the employer in whatever way is appropriate, given the employment contract. There may be labor laws involved, but this is not a Constitutional “rights” issue.
>>this would be a violation of HIS first amendment rights to freely exercise his beliefs/religion<<
There is no such right in the workplace.
>>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”<<
Congress isn’t involved here.
I have gay people at work tell me that not allowing gay marriage is wrong. Not much will come of it though, since the GM of our restaurant is gay. That and I’m a straight, white male with no rights.
“This situation is not different than if he had verbally objected to a co-worker’s interracial marriage.”
Alas, it was not, according to the story, a “co-worker.” He was a second deputy manager; she was a manager (from another store). She was in a role superior to his; she is or was on that day his supervisor. She was clearly engaged in harassment of a subordinate employee.
The company may be within its rights to fire him, but similarly it should fire her. But note who brought the complaint.
I notice that in your response at post 70 you didn't actually answer that question. Posting that "...the most useful definition is that which is spelled out in the framework established by the USC and its amendments" is more a diversion than an adequate answer.
Is the answer to the question "no"?
>> I notice that in your response at post 70 you didn’t actually answer that question. Posting that “...the most useful definition is that which is spelled out in the framework established by the USC and its amendments” is more a diversion than an adequate answer.
Is the answer to the question “no”?<<
I told you just fine.
“I told you just fine.”
I think you tried to fake it when you don’t have a real answer or much of an understanding.
>>I think you tried to fake it when you don’t have a real answer or much of an understanding.<<
I think your inability to understand my answer is your problem, not mine.
Kind of makes me wonder if the head of HR wasn’t of the same “persuasion” as the lesbian woman.
If that company can’t look at these two and figure out that SHE’S potentially more trouble for them in the future than he is,then he’s better off with another company.In the meantime,Brookstone can kiss my arse!
With these facts, he has a slam-dunk case for hostile work environment, harrassment and termination based on his religious beliefs. These rules apply to private employment.
If he were Muslim, they would never have dared to do what they did. The only way for Christians not be victims of persecution in this situation is to sue immediately. There should also be a boycott organized against Brookstone for its promotion of an anti-Christian work environment.
Among other things, Brookstone’s actions in allowing harrassment of an employee because of his religious beliefs and then terminating him violated Title VII of the federal civil rights laws.
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.