Mass Man Fired Over Views on Gay Marriage

[Marcia]

This Christian man was fired from a Mass. Brookstone store because, after a manager from another store told him she was marrying a woman, and kept saying this to him, he finally expressed not agreeing with this.

The store terminated him with a letter. Basically, he was fired because expressing a view that gay marriage is wrong in a state where it's legal is considered grounds for termination.

Please read the brief article and see the video where the man tells the story. He also reveals that the Brookstone Company showed a film to employees that tells them that expressing even informal disagreement with homose*ual behavior can be considered offensive behavior.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/vadala/index.html

 

[matt wade]

I personally believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior and a sin against God. I also believe the store is within its rights to fire this man for any cause, not just this cause. Especially given this statement in the article:

Peter also described one of Brookstone’s required diversity training films (see video above) that gave the clear message that even any informal discussion uncomplimentary of homosexual behavior would be considered “offensive” by the company.

The company made it very clear that speaking against homosexual behavior would not be tolerated. he spoke against it. He now suffers the consequences.

I uphold their right to fire this man, so I may retain the right to fire anyone working for me that advocates homosexual behavior.

 

[Marcia]

I personally believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior and a sin against God. I also believe the store is within its rights to fire this man for any cause, not just this cause. Especially given this statement in the article:



The company made it very clear that speaking against homosexual behavior would not be tolerated. he spoke against it. He now suffers the consequences.

I uphold their right to fire this man, so I may retain the right to fire anyone working for me that advocates homosexual behavior.

Apparently, however, the other store manager was needling him with it. She kept repeating that she was marrying a woman. I think she sensed his discomfort and was provoking him. He did not say anything the first few times she brought it up.

It is not like he made a statement out of nowhere or told someone he thought it was wrong. If a company has this right, pretty soon after same sex marriage is legal in more states (I think the Maine incident is just temporary), this means you can say nothing in the face of provocation.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apparently, however, the other store manager was needling him with it. She kept repeating that she was marrying a woman. I think she sensed his discomfort and was provoking him. He did not say anything the first few times she brought it up.

It is not like he made a statement out of nowhere or told someone he thought it was wrong. If a company has this right, pretty soon after same sex marriage is legal in more states (I think the Maine incident is just temporary), this means you can say nothing in the face of provocation.

Sure because libbies have to create victims where none exist. It is a political tool born out of hatred.

 

[targus]

I personally believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior and a sin against God. I also believe the store is within its rights to fire this man for any cause, not just this cause. Especially given this statement in the article:



The company made it very clear that speaking against homosexual behavior would not be tolerated. he spoke against it. He now suffers the consequences.

I uphold their right to fire this man, so I may retain the right to fire anyone working for me that advocates homosexual behavior.

It seems to me that it would only be fair then to have a similar policy against bringing up the topic of homosexual behavior to begin with.

It does not seem equitable to protect the speech of only one side of a controversial issue.

Is it not reasonable that the person holding the opposing view point is equally offended by the expression of the proponents views?

 

[matt wade]

It seems to me that it would only be fair then to have a similar policy against bringing up the topic of homosexual behavior to begin with.

It does not seem equitable to protect the speech of only one side of a controversial issue.

Is it not reasonable that the person holding the opposing view point is equally offended by the expression of the proponents views?

My point is that business owners can choose to limit or protect whatever speech they so choose. Freedom of speech does not extend to your place of work. If I as an employer wish to empose rules that you are not allowed to advocate any religion but Christianity in my workplace, I should be within my rights to do so. If I then fire a person because they talked about Muhammad as some great prophet or some other false god, I should suffer no consequences.

In this case I'm simply defending a companies right to limit speech within their company. On a personal level, I'll avoid shopping at Brookstone.

 

[Marcia]

My point is that business owners can choose to limit or protect whatever speech they so choose. Freedom of speech does not extend to your place of work. If I as an employer wish to empose rules that you are not allowed to advocate any religion but Christianity in my workplace, I should be within my rights to do so. If I then fire a person because they talked about Muhammad as some great prophet or some other false god, I should suffer no consequences.

In this case I'm simply defending a companies right to limit speech within their company. On a personal level, I'll avoid shopping at Brookstone.

But if you owned a store and said no employee could advocate gay rights, you probably would be sued or out of business.

 

[matt wade]

But if you owned a store and said no employee could advocate gay rights, you probably would be sued or out of business.

Well, that's a chance I would have to take, isn't it .

 

[KenH]

I agree with Matt's comments on this issue.:thumbs:

 

[Marcia]

Well, that's a chance I would have to take, isn't it .

You're not getting that there is a double standard that is starting to take hold.

You cannot as an employee speak against same sex couples/marriage but employees can advocate gay rights or gay marriage. That was my point.

 

[Johnv]

I likewise agree with Ken and Matt. It's not a double standard either. Pornography is legal, but if a person runs a for-profit bookstore, that person can fire a person who vocally advocates pornography. Likewise, a Christian bookstore owner can fire a person who openly makes comments on the job supporting gay marriage. These types of cases have been tested numerous times in the courts.

 

[Marcia]

I likewise agree with Ken and Matt. It's not a double standard either. Pornography is legal, but if a person runs a for-profit bookstore, that person can fire a person who vocally advocates pornography. Likewise, a Christian bookstore owner can fire a person who openly makes comments on the job supporting gay marriage. These types of cases have been tested numerous times in the courts.

I think you are wrong. I do not think a Christian bookstore owner can fire someone for being for gay marriage. But a secular store owner can fire someone for being against gay marriage.

In fact, a Christian camp in NJ lost their tax exempt status because they would not accommodate gay couples. There are at least 3 other cases similar to this.

In a recent commentary on the Washington Post, a lawyer said that there is no legal protection for those objecting to gay marriage, such as caterers or photographers, in DC if the DC gay marriage bill passes.

 

[SeekingTruth]

The comments supporting the firing of a man for openly opposing homosexuality illustrate the sad state of Christianity in this country. When a Christian takes a stand against homosexuality he is immediately vilified. Yet it is okay for pro homosexual groups to openly advocate their deviant behavior. What is worse, it seems that some Christians support the vilification of other Christians. The fact that company policy supports "diversity" should not preclude a faithful Christian from following the teachings of the Bible and publicly advocating them.

 

[Nonsequitur]

(Hypothectical situation.)
I live in Texas.
I have several large ranches all over the state.
WHO, including the GOVERNMENT, has a right to tell me what to do, how to tell me how to run my ranches,
WHAT has anyone got the right to tell me what to do on my own property?
WHEN does anyone, anywhere , have the right to tell me what to do with my property?
WHERE in the U.S. Constitution AND the TEXAS Constitution does it say that the 'government' has a right to tell me what to do?
WHY would they, other than to try to amass some power to take my rights away?
HOW?
.. are they going to try?
It's called the democratic party.
Come get it.

 

[KenH]

The fact that company policy supports "diversity" should not preclude a faithful Christian from following the teachings of the Bible and publicly advocating them.

If I owned a business that would certainly be the case, but if Christians are to have the freedom to hire and fire whom they want in their business then we must give that same freedom to non-Christians.

 

[Marcia]

(Hypothectical situation.)
I live in Texas.
I have several large ranches all over the state.
WHO, including the GOVERNMENT, has a right to tell me what to do, how to tell me how to run my ranches,
WHAT has anyone got the right to tell me what to do on my own property?
WHEN does anyone, anywhere , have the right to tell me what to do with my property?
WHERE in the U.S. Constitution AND the TEXAS Constitution does it say that the 'government' has a right to tell me what to do?
WHY would they, other than to try to amass some power to take my rights away?
HOW?
.. are they going to try?
It's called the democratic party.
Come get it.

I don't get the relevance here. We are talking about businesses and employees. I have pointed out, and have the facts to back it up, that in some places, a person cannot state they oppose gay unions without facing being fired, but on the other hand, people in the same place can express support of gay unions.

 

[Marcia]

If I owned a business that would certainly be the case, but if Christians are to have the freedom to hire and fire whom they want in their business then we must give that same freedom to non-Christians.

I don't know that Christians have any such right if they own a business, especially in a state like Mass. Christians cannot fire someone on the grounds that that person expresses support for gay unions.

I already mentioned that if the DC gay marriage bill passes, caterers and photographers who refuse to do business for a gay couple getting married would not be legally protected. And I pointed out a case in NJ of a Christain camp losing tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate gay couples.

This is the point that several here seem to be missing: laws are being put in place that will penalize those who express opposition to gay unions, no matter who the owner is (Christian or not). Whereas those who support gay unions are free to express this.

 

[Nonsequitur]

I don't get the relevance here. We are talking about businesses and employees. I have pointed out, and have the facts to back it up, that in some places, a person cannot state they oppose gay unions without facing being fired, but on the other hand, people in the same place can express support of gay unions.

Gee, I thought it was obvious.
I even used the old FIVE 'W's.
Guess that's not taught anymore.
The ' RELEVANCE'?
How about this?
It's my land, my property, my company, and I'll hire and fire who I want.
If that is not about businesses and employees....sheesh.

 

[Nonsequitur]

I don't know that Christians have any such right if they own a business, especially in a state like Mass. Christians cannot fire someone on the grounds that that person expresses support for gay unions.

I already mentioned that if the DC gay marriage bill passes, caterers and photographers who refuse to do business for a gay couple getting married would not be legally protected. And I pointed out a case in NJ of a Christain camp losing tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate gay couples.

This is the point that several here seem to be missing: laws are being put in place that will penalize those who express opposition to gay unions, no matter who the owner is (Christian or not). Whereas those who support gay unions are free to express this.(You mean like when God says it is an abomination to Him? Oh, no!!!!!!!)[/QUOTE]

Well....you support the laws of Mass., N.J., or whatever.
I'll go by what God says.
More power to you. (As we used to say in the '60's)
We'll see who wins, God, or the homosexual laws.
Good luck.

 

[annsni]

I personally believe that homosexuality is deviant behavior and a sin against God. I also believe the store is within its rights to fire this man for any cause, not just this cause. Especially given this statement in the article:



The company made it very clear that speaking against homosexual behavior would not be tolerated. he spoke against it. He now suffers the consequences.

I uphold their right to fire this man, so I may retain the right to fire anyone working for me that advocates homosexual behavior.

This is totally "thought police". So in other words, one can say something about a particular topic but someone else cannot? So, do we allow only those who are Democrat to speak about politics but not Republicans? Do we allow pagans to speak about "Mother Earth" but Christians can't say anything?

This is unconstitutional. I guarantee it. I don't care what they say - saying that a person does not accept homosexuality as normal or right is not "offensive" and worthy of firing someone over. Take it to court and this person should win. If he must be quiet, then NO talk of homosexuality should be allowed in the store.