Massachusetts Man Says He Was Fired for Telling Colleague Her Gay Marriage Is Wrong

[paperview]

How come only swishy right wingers hate lesbians?

You noticed that too, huh?

 

[alan1]

She mentioned she was getting married.

The horrors!

Ahh, so somebody else started it. Did they get fired also?

Since when is it against workplace rules to mention to a coworker you are getting married (Legally, I might add) in the the coming week?

He called her a deviant and announced he hated gays.

See the difference?

Ask Luissa, she said,

and he should have been fired, you are not suppose to discuss those things in the work place.

 

[paperview]

Ahh, so somebody else started it. Did they get fired also?

Since when is it against workplace rules to mention to a coworker you are getting married (Legally, I might add) in the the coming week?

He called her a deviant and announced he hated gays.

See the difference?

Ask Luissa, she said,

and he should have been fired, you are not suppose to discuss those things in the work place.

Apparently you can't
See the difference.

 

[alan1]

Since when is it against workplace rules to mention to a coworker you are getting married (Legally, I might add) in the the coming week?

He called her a deviant and announced he hated gays.

See the difference?

Ask Luissa, she said,

and he should have been fired, you are not suppose to discuss those things in the work place.

Apparently you can't
See the difference.

I'm not the one that said you couldn't discuss marriage in the work place, or should get fired for it.

 

[paperview]

Ask Luissa, she said,

Apparently you can't
See the difference.

I'm not the one that said you couldn't discuss marriage in the work place, or should get fired for it.

She never said that, doofus.

 

[alan1]

Apparently you can't
See the difference.

I'm not the one that said you couldn't discuss marriage in the work place, or should get fired for it.

She never said that, doofus.

Yet you removed her quote from your response.
I'm the one that never said it, she was.
I merely asked a question about it.

 

[paperview]

I'm not the one that said you couldn't discuss marriage in the work place, or should get fired for it.

She never said that, doofus.

Yet you removed her quote from your response.
I'm the one that never said it, she was.
I merely asked a question about it.

I didn't remove anything. The damn software clips nested quotes after a certain level.

And you are being intentionally obtuse right now.

Go play with your hanky.

 

[alan1]

She never said that, doofus.

Yet you removed her quote from your response.
I'm the one that never said it, she was.
I merely asked a question about it.

I didn't remove anything. The damn software clips nested quotes after a certain level.

And you are being intentionally obtuse right now.

Go play with your hanky.

Obtuse <> Questioning
Don't hate me because I challenge the status quo.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To the OP

People are too easily offended and really need to grow a thicker skin. This applies to both parties in the article.

 

[rdean]

To the OP

People are too easily offended and really need to grow a thicker skin. This applies to both parties in the article.

If you don't take a stand at work after being called "deviant", you will be called worse.

 

[ihopehefails]

I would like to say that the employer has a right to fire this person for whatever reason they want but it really was not the employer's choice to begin with because he was fired due to the fear of being sued in court. I'm sure if there was no established litigation then he would not have been fired and it would have been a dispute between two employees as it should have remained.

Its similar to sexual harassment ruling against companies that have declared that anyone saying "women are inferior" (obviously sexest) or hold a traditional view of the role of women such as staying home and raising kids can be fired because it is considered sexual harassment. Now I was always thought that sexual harassment was when you said sexually degrading things or demanded sex for promotions but to expand it to harmless views held by others such as is the case of this man in the OP then I think its merely an attempt to use the litigation process to prosecute those who may hold opinions liberals think we shouldn't have.

 

[ayiakri]

Welcome to the new Socialist Nightmare. People really need to stop confusing Liberalism and Socialism. Liberalism and Socialism really are two different things. Real Liberals believe in Free Speech but Socialists do not.

Welcome to the new illiterate nightmare. People really need to stop confusing the constitutional right to free speech with the rules companies and corporations can impose on speech inside their privately-owned premises.

Would you say that, as an employee of a company, you should be free to say to your boss, "I hate you, you fuc&king ni**er, and this company sucks, and I'm buying our competitors products - and you can all kiss my ass" ???

Should that get you fired? Ya think? But wait - you're busy whining about free speech, so are you saying that nothing you say at a privately-owned company should be grounds for getting fired?

Either you are saying that, or you're not. If you are - you're an idiot. And if you're not - then the guy trying to push his religious beliefs and engage in harassment (in Mass.) of another employee can, and should be fired.

 

[California Girl]

To the OP

People are too easily offended and really need to grow a thicker skin. This applies to both parties in the article.

Horray for common sense.

 

[paperview]

To the OP

People are too easily offended and really need to grow a thicker skin. This applies to both parties in the article.

This isn't as much about thicker skin as good business sense.

Discovering a new hire who works at your upscale store, situated in a busy airport no less, is calling a person a deviant and saying he hates gay people - is only a disaster in the making.
Best nip it in the bud and toss him.

Not wise to keep a worker, who is in regular contact with the public, and as such a representative of the store, who is prone to condemning either a persons race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation on the payroll.

Just not wise.

 

[manifold]

Deviants have a right to earn a living too.

 

[paperview]

I would like to say that the employer has a right to fire this person for whatever reason they want but it really was not the employer's choice to begin with because he was fired due to the fear of being sued in court. I'm sure if there was no established litigation then he would not have been fired and it would have been a dispute between two employees as it should have remained.

Its similar to sexual harassment ruling against companies that have declared that anyone saying "women are inferior" (obviously sexest) or hold a traditional view of the role of women such as staying home and raising kids can be fired because it is considered sexual harassment. Now I was always thought that sexual harassment was when you said sexually degrading things or demanded sex for promotions but to expand it to harmless views held by others such as is the case of this man in the OP then I think its merely an attempt to use the litigation process to prosecute those who may hold opinions liberals think we shouldn't have.

...or hold a traditional view of the role of women such as staying home and raising kids can be fired because it is considered sexual harassment.

Anyone can hold that view all they want and they will not be fired for sexual harassment.

It's when you vocalize your issues and, for example, tell a woman to "get back in the kitchen bitch" it becomes a problem.

Just like I can hold a view you are a dolt - but if I harass you about it in the workplace, trouble's ahead.

 

[manifold]

Deviants have a right to earn a living too.

Without being harassed about it that is.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To the OP

People are too easily offended and really need to grow a thicker skin. This applies to both parties in the article.

If you don't take a stand at work after being called "deviant", you will be called worse.

The guy is entitled to his opinion, she's entitled to be offended and let him know it. They both need to grow thicker skins. I swear to God people are such weenies these days. Politically correct my ass. Fuck that.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Harrassmebt be definition has to be persistent. One comment does not fir that criteria. My goodness! You should hear the stuff we talk about at work. Its USMB.

actually it doesn't, it just has to create a hostile work envirnment which it obviously did. Telling someone their lifestyle is "bad stuff" and a sin I think would create a hostile work envirnment. They had to fire him, if the employer didn't take action against him they would then be breaking the law.

What this poster means is, as long as you have strong lefty beliefs- you can express them all you want and be free from fear of firing. But if you hold religious beliefs- to express them is tantamount to being harassed. No wonder poofters are so overwhelmingly lefties. Ya gotta be a wimp to join....

 

[ihopehefails]

I would like to say that the employer has a right to fire this person for whatever reason they want but it really was not the employer's choice to begin with because he was fired due to the fear of being sued in court. I'm sure if there was no established litigation then he would not have been fired and it would have been a dispute between two employees as it should have remained.

Its similar to sexual harassment ruling against companies that have declared that anyone saying "women are inferior" (obviously sexest) or hold a traditional view of the role of women such as staying home and raising kids can be fired because it is considered sexual harassment. Now I was always thought that sexual harassment was when you said sexually degrading things or demanded sex for promotions but to expand it to harmless views held by others such as is the case of this man in the OP then I think its merely an attempt to use the litigation process to prosecute those who may hold opinions liberals think we shouldn't have.

...or hold a traditional view of the role of women such as staying home and raising kids can be fired because it is considered sexual harassment.

Anyone can hold that view all they want and they will not be fired for sexual harassment.

It's when you vocalize your issues and, for example, tell a woman to "get back in the kitchen bitch" it becomes a problem.

Just like I can hold a view you are a dolt - but if I harass you about it in the workplace, trouble's ahead.

Tell me why I can't say something offensive to someone in the workplace or even express an offensive opinion in the workplace? I know its the bosses discretion but we all know that sexual harassment lawsuits are expensive and employers fear those so they fire those who may be guilty of it. What the fascist have done have expanded sexual harassment into expressing offensive opinions in an attempt to silence opinions they don't want people to have.

Honestly, you should just get over it. If someone expresses an opinion you don't like then you should just move on in life and don't give me this crap that its sexual harassment when someone says "get back in the kitchen" because I can say blacks should pick cotton and not a single racial harassment lawsuit will get filed.

The truth is the sexual harassment rules are violation of someone's freedom of speech because they go beyond what they were originally meant to do and now are a tool used to censor unpopular opinions.