BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
behavior to be wrong. Brookstone, however, has justified its action by
referring to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex "marriage."
"It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong.
That's the reason that I was fired," Peter Vidala told
MassResistance.org.
The incident leading to Vidala's termination began when a visiting
manager told Vidala that she was getting married. Vidala congratulated
her and asked where he (her husband) was taking her for the honeymoon.
The other manager corrected him, saying "where is she taking me."
"I didn't say anything, I quickly changed the subject, and I kind of
went on with the workday," Vidala said. But the manager continued to
repeatedly mention her female 'fianc�e' throughout the day.
"It made me uncomfortable because I see that sort of behavior as
immoral, personally," Vidala said. And so when the manager mentioned
her "marriage" for what Vidala says was "at least the fourth time,"
Vidala felt compelled to speak.
"Regarding homosexuality, I believe that that 's bad stuff," Vidala says
he told the manager. He says that he was going to continue by
explaining that he would prefer her not to bring it up in the workplace,
but she started laughing.
"Get over it. HR buddy, keep your opinions to yourself," she said. A
few hours later Vidala was suspended; two days later Vidala received a
termination letter, which accuses him of "harassment" and of "imposing"
his beliefs upon others.
Vidala, however, perceives the situation differently. He told Fox News
that he felt the manager could discern his opinions and that he was
"intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship.
"She knew how I felt about homosexuality," Vidala said. "When you talk
to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was
kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm
happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her."
Perhaps more disturbingly, however, Vidala says that Brookstone's letter
"cited the fact that so-called homosexual marriage is legal in
Massachusetts. And that's why this superior of mine talking about her
fianc�e wasn't considered harassing to Brookstone."
"If homosexual marriage does become legal in your state," he warned,
"you could be fired from your job as well, just for expressing your
belief that you disagree with that lifestyle."
Advocates of homosexual "marriage" have long denied that such
legalization would injure those who believe homosexual behavior to be
wrong. Vidala's case, however, adds to a growing list of instances that
seem to indicate the opposite.
For instance, homosexual behavior is taught as normative in
Massachussets schools. Parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin lost a case
against the school after their 2nd-grade son was taught about homosexual
behavior without their permission.
Even in states such as New Mexico, where same-sex "marriage" is not
legal, a husband-and-wife photography company was successfully sued for
refusing to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. Similarly, a
Methodist association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt
status for part of its property by refusing to allow a homosexual
"couple" to use its pavilion for a civil union ceremony.
Vidala was also disturbed by a video Brookstone shows to all new
employees to help illustrate its personnel policies. According to
Vidala, in it a man who describes himself as gay says that he was
offended by overhearing another man say, "Well, gee, you know, I'd be
uncomfortable if a homosexual hit on me."
Vidala continued: "You could have a so-called homosexual person hit on
you [if you work for Brookstone], and you won't be able to say anything,
because by expressing your belief that what they're doing is wrong,
you're harassing them."
Vidala, get yourself a good lawyer, you'll own that corporation of gay
bigotry.
Lets see him tell a black co-worker that he thinks it was wrong to end
slavery...and see how long he keeps his job.
No difference. The bigot should keep his racist ideas to himself.
..
> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
> Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
> behavior to be wrong.
Good. And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
insubordination.
And of course, this was cross-posted to:
talk.politics.guns
alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
alt.gossip.celebrities
Because Lord knows, if I am a famous gay New England football player
who carries a 'Colt 45, I absolutely must know about this for fear of
losing my starting position and getting transferred to San Francisco?
So you are comparing the fact that you prefer it up the ass with people
having darker skin?
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
Well, so much for tolerance.
This is the kind of thing might start getting gays murdered if people think
that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
> Lets see him tell a black co-worker that he thinks it was wrong to end
> slavery...and see how long he keeps his job.
>
> No difference. The bigot should keep his racist ideas to himself.
Although I have no problem with gay marriage, this comparison is a
case of apples and oranges. Slavery was abolished almost 150 years
ago, while gay marriage has been legal in MA for only a few years. To
expect people to change their opinions on something like gay marriage
overnight is unrealistic.
The fact that something's legal doesn't make all opposing views off
limits. Should a Nevada worker be fired for daring to say that
gambling isn't right? In a state where marriage between first cousins
is legal, should someone be fired for saying that allowing people so
closely related to marry is wrong? If Utah were to somehow legalize
polygamy, would it be OK to fire someone for saying that isn't right?
Is it OK to fire someone for saying that the drinking age should be
raised?
Is it grounds for firing someone for saying that abortion is wrong?
It'd be a different case if the manager's views interfered with his
duties -- for example, if he were rude to or refused to serve a gay
person/couple. But fortunately for Brookstone, there's no law against
enforcing politically correct thought in the workplace -- that is, so
long as the political correctness is of the right sort.
"Start"? Do you live in a shoe?
> if people think
> that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
Clue: Gays are already being murdered because they're gay.
go tell your boss you think he/she is immoral and wrong.
see how long you keep your job
and how ironic. the bigot claims he's the victim of intolerance because his
bigotry gets him fired.
> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager
> at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
> behavior to be wrong. Brookstone, however, has justified its action by
> referring to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex "marriage."
>
> "It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong.
> That's the reason that I was fired," Peter Vidala told MassResistance.org.
GOOD!!! May that hateful and mindless bigot ROT in unemployment
lines for the rest of his miserable and abjectly-ignorant life!
KUDOS to Brookstone!!!
One can only wonder what the truth of the matter is as LifeSiteNews is
well known for slanting its reports. It will take an actual event and
strip it out of its actual context and paint it in the worst possible
light to get its biased point across.
>
> For instance, homosexual behavior is taught as normative in
> Massachussets schools. Parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin lost a case
> against the school after their 2nd-grade son was taught about homosexual
> behavior without their permission.
Interesting in that this is a complete lie made up by the right wing.
The story does not admit that this couple were active opponents of
same sex marriage and part of an organization dedicated to repealing
same sex marriage long before the alleged incident took place. They
also do not tell people that their son already knew and was friends
with children who came from same sex marriages before the alleged
event took place. The actual event was the reading of a book which
was not part of the actual curriculum, during a class lesson on
marriages. The teacher was instructing the children that marriage in
Massachusetts included not only mixed sex but also same sex couples.
The couple sued saying they had the right to remove their child out of
any instruction they deemed inappropriate and to receive advance
notification of such instruction. There is no advance notification
for any subjects taught in Massachusetts schools as there is some some
states for example for sex education. They lost at every level and
the United States Supreme Court [not exactly a liberal bastion]
refused to hear their appeal which tells you sometung right away about
the merits of their case..
>
> Even in states such as New Mexico, where same-sex "marriage" is not
> legal, a husband-and-wife photography company was successfully sued for
> refusing to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony.
New Mexico, like many states has an anti-discrimination law which
states that anyone engaged in a business activity within the state may
not discriminate. The business in question operated a photography
business and refused to photograph a same sex couple. They were sued
for this under the New Mexican law and they lost. No surprise there
and it had nothing to do with marriage. If it were a birthday party
in which the celebrant was a member fo a same sex couple they could
have been sued as well.
> Similarly, a
> Methodist association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt
> status for part of its property by refusing to allow a homosexual
> "couple" to use its pavilion for a civil union ceremony.
The Methodist Association in question operated a pavilion at the
Jersey Shore as a business. This was not a church or a place where
religious activities regularly took place, although it was sometimes
used for such activities. Anyone who wished to rent the pavilion for
a reception, birthday party, or whatever type of celebration could do
so. Again, this was a business and the court ruled that any business
open to the public, regardless of the owners, had to comply with state
laws governing discrimination. The case in question had nothing to do
with same sex marriage except in a peripheral fashion.
>
> Vidala was also disturbed by a video Brookstone shows to all new
> employees to help illustrate its personnel policies. According to
> Vidala, in it a man who describes himself as gay says that he was
> offended by overhearing another man say, "Well, gee, you know, I'd be
> uncomfortable if a homosexual hit on me."
>
> Vidala continued: "You could have a so-called homosexual person hit on
> you [if you work for Brookstone], and you won't be able to say anything,
> because by expressing your belief that what they're doing is wrong,
> you're harassing them."
I seriously doubt this story and wonder what the true story is. The
reason for this is quite simple. Current sexual harassment laws
require that a business keep its employees safe from sexual harassment
from other employees as well as clients of the business. So an
employees who went in and complained that a customer of the business
was "hitting on him" is legally protected in making such a complaint
under federal law and under most state laws as well.
Well, I am not one to comment on this post because this news group usually
crucifys anyone on either side of the fence in this type of issue.
BUT, Mr. PV is trying to blame his misfortune on speaking out about his
belief. I say "bullshit". He had no business opening his mouth in that
type of situation. He has no one to blame but himself.
Likewise, IMO CC is no different than Brookstone. Both are full of "merde"
Wull
>
>clouddreamer <saveth...@save.money.too> wrote in
>news:P5qdnVOiN9IjHWXX...@supernews.com:
>
>> All The More Reason wrote:
>>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110904.html
>>>
>>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
>>> Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
>>> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
>>> behavior to be wrong.
>>
>>
>> Lets see him tell a black co-worker that he thinks it was wrong to end
>> slavery...and see how long he keeps his job.
>>
>> No difference. The bigot should keep his racist ideas to himself.
>>
>> ..
>>
>
>So you are comparing the fact that you prefer it up the ass with people
>having darker skin?
That's not what he said at all. Why are you lying again?
He doesn't want to own that hive of louses, just sue them and put them into
bankruptcy. Fags can't have it both ways.
Big difference. Gays are not a race, it's personal choice and a behavior
issue, cut and dried.
Look at the stone throwing bigot pontificating self-righteous indignation.
Brookstone did all heterosexuals a favor by making this a constitutional
issue now.
Maybe they can even get those biased laws invalidated as unconstitutional.
He'll win any labor or legal action he files.
I hope he makes a federal issue out of it.
no he won't
you can get fired for insulting your boss, its a pvt company. he was the
harrasser not the harrassed.
Well if they are going to get people fired and make them lose thier ability
to support themselves and thier families simply becuase they don't buy into
the homo agenda, than I guess that's to bad right?
Clue: Gays aren't getting killed in any great numbers like you'd have us
believe. In fact i expect the killing of homos for being homos is rather
rare.
Unless of course you'd like to attempt to prove otherwise.
Ah, now I get it, it's OK to fire a hetero who doesn't like homos, but it's
not OK to fire homos eho don't like heteros.
You idiots are gonna end up exterminated, not for your lifestyle but for your
abuse of the political/legal system.
His manager was rubbing his face in her homosexual marriage. 4 times If I
read the story right. He only said something after the 4th mention. My
understanding is that she jnew it was making him uncomfortable.
But that's OK, if you fuckers really want t ostart using the law to fuck
people over don't be surprised when you get your comeuppance.
Please child, shit and sit in the corner and let the (alleged) adults speak.
Noone cares what you say. Go wipe your ass.
Really, she pestered him 4 times about her homo marriage, knowing it made him
uncomfortable. He finally told her basically to keep it to herself.
But that's OK, know the agenda is out in the open. We've got your number now.
Rare is a relative term. You didn't specify the scale when you floated the
theory. Rare in comparison to what? The frequency of the killing of bigots
for being bigots? The frequency of the killing of fleas for being on your
dog? It's just nonsense.
So before you challenge someone to prove your theory incorrect, try actually
stating a theory that means something first, and provide evidence to back it
up, otherwise, you're just another loudmouth trying to stir shit.
MartyB in KC
If homosexual behavior /IS/ wrong, then what?
>
> He'll win any labor or legal action he files.
>
Cite the precedents and pertinent laws and regulations which give you this
knowledge.
Or admit you don't have that information and you're just floating an
uneducated presumption dressed up to look like a fact.
Or just STFU.
Here's betting you can't do any of the above.
"Not buying into" something isn't quite the same thing as insulting a
co-worker (who likely was also a superior).
> than I guess that's to bad right?
Shows that the guy wasn't too bright and maybe should get some
education.
> Clue: Gays aren't getting killed in any great numbers like you'd have us
> believe.
I didn't give any numbers, great or otherwise, and didn't try to get
you to believe anything.
> In fact i expect the killing of homos for being homos is rather
> rare.
Would depend on your definition of "rare".
> Unless of course you'd like to attempt to prove otherwise.
Look up "gay bashing".
Yeah. He harassed a co-worker and really shouldn't wonder about why
he got fired.
Wow. How long did it take to pull THAT huge line of shit out of your
ass?
> You idiots are gonna end up exterminated,
Nope.
> not for your lifestyle but for your
> abuse of the political/legal system.
Nope.
Nope. He apparently harassed a coworker, likely a superior. Being
fired for insubordination, or harassment, is not illegal.
> I hope he makes a federal issue out of it.
So do I. :o)
Wrong again. Sexuality is NOT a personal choice. That's a legal fact
of life you have to live with.
>
You don't know Mass very well.
The story says she made mention of it. Nothing wrong with mentioning
one's upcoming nuptials.
> knowing it made him
> uncomfortable.
Aww, the poor widdle pussy. So, you think that mentioning one's
upcoming marriage constitutes harassment? Hmm? If so, then LOTS of
straight folks are gonna get fired.
> He finally told her basically to keep it to herself.
Well, no, "basically" he told her she was sub-human and sinful and
disgusting. "Basically".
>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110904.html
>
>BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
>Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
>his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
>behavior to be wrong. Brookstone, however, has justified its action by
>referring to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex "marriage."
>
>"It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong.
>That's the reason that I was fired," Peter Vidala told
>MassResistance.org.
>
What this will come down to is how a jury interprets what the company
policy says constitutes harassment. Should be interesting.
If what he said clearly violates that policy, then his termination is
lawful, if not it's damage award time.
A clever lawyer could make a case that Vidala was the harassed party.
Bill Smith
Your understanding? Based on what, exactly? Your personal interview with
him? With her? Your review of in store security video? Come on, don't keep
us in suspense if you have some juicy information to share!
Translation: You're quickly writing your reputation in stone as a fabricator
of bullshit.
Your understanding is that you have made up what you want to believe and
then tried to throw it out there as some sort of credible argument, and yet
again you are trying to imply that your wild-assed presumption is a fact.
Cite, or STFU.
>
> But that's OK, if you fuckers really want t ostart using the law to
> fuck people over don't be surprised when you get your comeuppance.
Yeah, they are all doing it. It's a conspiracy to fuck people with the law.
MartyB
Assuming Vidala's version of the events is true, he's got grounds for a suit
alleging a violation of his civil rights. He was unjustly fired for
rejecting his boss's lifestyle choice. That's wrong. Just as if he was the
gay person and his boss fired him because of it.
If he had a history of telling the gays in his workplace that they are going
to burn in Hell, or whatever, then his firing would be appropriate. But if
the story is accurate as related here -- and we have no way ot know that
it's accurate or not -- then he should not be fired for holding a view
expressed exactly once and in direct response to an afront he felt being
directed at him.
He ought not have to be repeatedly exposed to sexual orientation
conversations, especialy after he has expressed his discomfort over the
issue. He merely disagreed with the lifestyle. He did not force his view on
anybody, indeed by his account a view he finds repugnant was forced upon
him.
He was not in a position of power over anybody, and certainly not the gay
person that was offending him, so he should have some lattitude to express
disaproval.
If the boss was saying, repeatedly, that she was going out to have a double
Scotch and water after work, and he finally said, I disaprove of drinking
alcohol so please don't tell me anymore about this, and left it at that,
should he be fired? Did he force his views on anybody? No, and no.
You might not agree with his lifestyle choices or his drinking habits, and
you certainly have a right to state that you find him to be disgusting and
dispicable. This might make you less than popular, or the most popular
person at the job, but youi have a right to your view and he has a right to
his.
I think Vidala has a case. His rights have been violated for merely stating
that his value system is not the same as yours.
And of course, this was cross-posted to:
talk.politics.guns
alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
alt.gossip.celebrities
Because Lord knows, if I am a famous gay New England football player
who carries a 'Colt 45, I absolutely must know about this for fear of
losing my starting position and getting transferred to San Francisco?
<JS>
There's worse things than playing for the 49rs
</JS>
What if the boss was pushing peanut butter sandwiches, and Vidala does not
like peanuts?
He has no power over those higher in the chain of command, and his beliefs
were under attack so he defended them. That's a basic human right.
If you hired a salesman who made it clear that he hates Chinese
people...and you run a fortune cookie distribution location in San
Francisco...would you want to keep him on if he lets those hatred be
known???
Does Mass. have a grace period for employers? Locally, an employee can
be terminated for any reason within the first three months and the
employer doesn't have to say why.
Given that I can't find this in the mainstream media...I'm guessing
there were other reasons but the right wing/christian media latched on
to that part of the story. One website that I found among the religious
stuff had a link to some of buddy's tirades against homosexuals.
Apparently, he was quite vocal about it.
..
How dare you argue with the PC Police? Most of these same people that gang
tackle someone for simply not agreeing with the gay way I GUARANTEE YOU have
one or more groups of people that they either hate or dislike strongly or
"tolerate". Fucking hypocrites!
Tell you all what. I don't have a goddamned violent or hurtful bone in my
body and I would never go out of my way to harm anybody that wasn't directly
affecting my life but I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle and if you
don't like that and don't like that I share that with you, too fucking bad.
Killfile me and shut your whiney fucking traps up. Hows them apples?
I wouldn't want anybody thaqt chases the customers out the door, but that's
not the case here, so it's irrelevent.
> Does Mass. have a grace period for employers? Locally, an employee can be
> terminated for any reason within the first three months and the employer
> doesn't have to say why.
>
> Given that I can't find this in the mainstream media...I'm guessing there
> were other reasons but the right wing/christian media latched on to that
> part of the story. One website that I found among the religious stuff had
> a link to some of buddy's tirades against homosexuals. Apparently, he was
> quite vocal about it.
>
> ..
I wouldn't want anybody on my payroll that chases the customers out the
door, but that's not the case here, so it's irrelevent.
I, personally, would make a good worker in a customer service environment,
but I am opposed to the gay lifestyle.
If I was being hounded by a supervisor or a customer to attend a gay
wedding, I'd have no problem saying that I would not be in attendance
because I think homosexuality is wrong. I can't hire of fire, and I'm not
chasing the customers away, so my views are purely personal and if I hold
them to myself until I feel that I am under assault, then I ought not be
fired for having them.
If I went around with a sandwich board proclaiming fags a bain on society,
then perhaps my employer would have gounds to rethink my employment status.
Well, let's see... we've only got the one side. It's been reported
only by Fox and other such reputable news organizations. Oh, and I
saw a version hosted by Ann Coulter. I haven't actually seen anything
even naming the "offending" manager, nothing about a lawsuit, but
MassResistance has taken up the cause.
Here's the fired dude on video:
> he's got grounds for a suit
> alleging a violation of his civil rights.
His civil right to .. .what?
> He was unjustly fired for
> rejecting his boss's lifestyle choice.
How so? If not "harassment", his behavior certainly was
"inappropriate and unprofessional". Kinda like telling the boss to
fuck off, really, and there are no legal protections for that kind of
behavior, are there? The guy was a second deputy manager, telling a
manager that her lifestyle is "bad". Doesn't take a rocket scientist
to extrapolate that he thinks that being gay is bad, and that
therefore SHE is bad because of who she is. If you can imagine this
happening to a Jew marrying a Christian, or black guy marrying a white
gal, the same course of action would have been taken.
> That's wrong. Just as if he was the
> gay person and his boss fired him because of it.
Well, since sexual orientation is a protected class like race, if you
just substitute the lesbian manager with a black man, and her fiancee
with a white woman, and you tell the black man that you think blacks
and whites shouldn't be able to marry each other, ...
> If he had a history of telling the gays in his workplace that they are going
> to burn in Hell, or whatever, then his firing would be appropriate.
He has to have a whole "history"? This once is OK, but if he has a
"history", then it's OK to fire him?
> But if
> the story is accurate as related here -- and we have no way ot know that
> it's accurate or not -- then he should not be fired for holding a view
> expressed exactly once and in direct response to an afront he felt being
> directed at him.
He says in the video that the woman "mentioned" her fiancee "four" (or
"at least four") times. "Mentioned". How is that an affront? The
affront occurred when he told her that her lifestyle was, basically,
sinful, immoral, "bad". He's a stupid little boy if he actually
thought he could get away with saying what he did.
> He ought not have to be repeatedly exposed to sexual orientation
> conversations,
So, then, you think that those of us who listen to straight people's
wedding plans should be able to be offensive to them personally in
some way, and to be able to attack their lifestyles and their
"personhood", as it were.
> especialy after he has expressed his discomfort over the
> issue.
Well, in fairness, we don't know that he did, and even if he did, so
what. The talk was of a wedding, not about sex or even sexuality.
Had the conversation actually been about sexual practices, then the
manager should have been fired. But the fired dude never claims that
this is what occurred.
> He merely disagreed with the lifestyle.
Ah. No. He didn't "merely disagree". He vocalized it. See, there's
a difference between keeping your bigoted thoughts to yourself, and
blasting them out at a member of the group you hate. Rather like a
white bigot will not screech "NIGGER!!!!!!!" while walking through
Harlem, though he might do it in his own trailer park.
> He did not force his view on
> anybody,
He basically told the woman that he thinks she's going to go to hell
because of who she is, and who she chooses as a spouse.
> indeed by his account a view he finds repugnant was forced upon
> him.
Lots of gays in Massachusetts, my friend. That defense won't work.
You're REALLY suggesting that people who have an upcoming or recent
marriage could be found to be harassing or violating the civil rights
of people they tell about it? Dude!
> He was not in a position of power over anybody, and certainly not the gay
> person that was offending him, so he should have some lattitude to express
> disaproval.
Let's try an experiment: Go tell your boss that you hate who he is,
and tell him to fuck off. Just for fun. Act serious, too. Get it on
video.
> If the boss was saying, repeatedly, that she was going out to have a double
> Scotch and water after work, and he finally said, I disaprove of drinking
> alcohol so please don't tell me anymore about this, and left it at that,
> should he be fired?
We're not talking about going out for a drink, and you know it.
> Did he force his views on anybody?
He spoke up when he should have, if he'd had a brain cell working,
kept his mouth shut.
> You might not agree with his lifestyle choices or his drinking habits, and
> you certainly have a right to state that you find him to be disgusting and
> dispicable.
If you told him that you thought his religion was stupid, and implied
that you thought he was stupid because he subscribed to that religion,
you'd be in the same shoes he's wearing right now.
> This might make you less than popular, or the most popular
> person at the job, but youi have a right to your view and he has a right to
> his.
Nobody's threatening to take away his "view". The trouble he
experienced is because he couldn't keep his mouth shut. In the
workplace, there is no guarantee that what you take for granted as
free speech on the OUTSIDE, will be consequence-free speech on the
INSIDE.
> I think Vidala has a case.
Then why hasn't he filed one?
> His rights have been violated for merely stating
> that his value system is not the same as yours.
He was "inappropriate and unprofessional", at the very least.
Apparently this is enough to fire his ass. And that is what was
done.
We're not talking about legumes here.
> He has no power over those higher in the chain of command,
He forgot that when he decided to not keep his offensive statements to
himself.
> and his beliefs
> were under attack
Nobody mentioned his beliefs. Except for him. After all was said and
done.
> so he defended them.
He hadn't been attacked, but rather was the offender.
> That's a basic human right.
So is being stupid, and that is one right he proved to understand the
meaning of.
It was a retail store. He would have contact with customers.
>
> I, personally, would make a good worker in a customer service environment,
> but I am opposed to the gay lifestyle.
Which makes you a close-minded bigot.
Bye bye.
<plonk>
..
If the dyke is entitled to her opinion in the workplace, so is he.
>
> No difference. The bigot should keep his racist ideas to himself.
Racist?
What a simpleton.
Many deny it. Say they are "wired" differently. Say they knew they
were homos in first grade and earlier.
What is so amusing about such people is the degree to which they are
dead blind to their own hypocrisy.
>
> This is the kind of thing might start getting gays murdered if people think
> that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
Yup. Bottle peoples' feelings up - that's really going to set the
world at peace and harmony.
People get stoopider by the minute.
We're not talking about legumes here.
> He has no power over those higher in the chain of command,
He forgot that when he decided to not keep his offensive statements to
himself.
<JS>
But he finds the promotion of homosexuality EQUALLY offensive as you find
his objection to it. If you are going to scream at the top of your lungs
that gay is good, then you should be prepared to hear just as loudly that
fags are fools.
One man's faith is another man's lie.
</JS>
> and his beliefs
> were under attack
Nobody mentioned his beliefs. Except for him. After all was said and
done.
> so he defended them.
He hadn't been attacked, but rather was the offender.
<JS>
If the story is true as printed, and I have no way to know one way or the
other, then HE felt he was under assault by repeated conversations about a
homosexual lover proposing marriage.
He did not seek out his boss to diss her lifestyle. The boss REPEATEDLY
spoke of her sexuality that until now was a private issue between her and
her lover. The boss chose to repeatedly discuss her gay lover's marriage
proposal until Vidala finally had to say to her, I reject homosexuality.
Just because yoiu accept homosexuality does not mean that everybody has to
accept it. Clearly there is a line at which rejection of homosexuality goes
too far, but by the story we are discussion here, that line was not crossed
by the man that was fired for expressing his personal view vis a vis
homosexuality.
</JS>
Homosexuality exists in nature. It has been documented in several
hundred animal species.
So, tell me....when do you think a dolphin "decided" to be gay.
Those trying to convince themselves that homosexuality is not genetic
are the same loons who tied the left arms behind the backs of left
handed children and forced them to try to be "normal."
..
>> Well if they are going to get people fired and make them lose thier ability
>> to support themselves and thier families simply becuase they don't buy into
>> the homo agenda,
>
> "Not buying into" something isn't quite the same thing as insulting a
> co-worker (who likely was also a superior).
Expressing disagreement with a lifestyle does not constitute an insult.
Punching someone in the nose does.
> Look up "gay bashing".
A pseudo-term.
I've had a lot of gay acquaintances and a few close friends. THey bash
heterosexuals far and away more frequently and viciously than the other
way around, in my experience. What they do is similar to those black
people who hold no compunction to level any sort of racist remark they
please against white people but go all native if anyone says even
neutral things about black people. Let us all say "hypocrite".
Something tells me you've never been hounded to attend any wedding.
> I'd have no problem saying that I would not be in attendance
> because I think homosexuality is wrong.
And with your vast intelligence, you wouldn't be able to say, "Sorry,
won't be attending", instead of having to explain your OPINION, and
that your OPINION is the reason you won't be attending?
Why?
> I can't hire of fire, and I'm not
> chasing the customers away,
You're making the other employees very uncomfortable because you don't
approve of their existence. Many companies would want to get rid of
you, and unfortunately, they'd have to wait for an "incident" in order
to do that.
> so my views are purely personal
Not once they leave your fat mouth.
The dyke didn't state an opinion. She stated fact. She mentioned her
fiancee. That's not "opinion", and it isn't an opinion of the
religious nut's lifestyle.
Yeah. He harassed a co-worker and really shouldn't wonder about why
he got fired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he insulted his supervisor. that will get you fired every time.
> Which makes you a close-minded bigot.
>
> Bye bye.
>
> <plonk>
>
> ..
Why do you continuously plonk people and then keep on responding to
their posts?
A plonk means something!!! Words mean things!!
mr dude
<JS>
FOR THE RECORD
I have not seen the story reported anywhere except for the link that was
posted here. I acknowledge that we only have one side of the issue, and that
it's a leap of faith that it's the only side.
But, if the side we have is accurate, I stand by the notion that the man
that was fired was wrongly fired.
</JS>
<JS>
So, only homosexual orientation is protected? How, exactly does that work?
Please keep your arguments within the specific confines of the discussion at
hand.
The man fired was fired for not having a sexual orientation that is
homosexual in nature? How do you square that?
</JS>
> If he had a history of telling the gays in his workplace that they are
> going
> to burn in Hell, or whatever, then his firing would be appropriate.
He has to have a whole "history"? This once is OK, but if he has a
"history", then it's OK to fire him?
<JS>
But all he did, according to the story, is tell his lesbian boss that he
rejected homosexuality and he did not want to hear about her gay lover
anymore.
</JS>
> But if
> the story is accurate as related here -- and we have no way ot know that
> it's accurate or not -- then he should not be fired for holding a view
> expressed exactly once and in direct response to an afront he felt being
> directed at him.
He says in the video that the woman "mentioned" her fiancee "four" (or
"at least four") times. "Mentioned". How is that an affront? The
affront occurred when he told her that her lifestyle was, basically,
sinful, immoral, "bad". He's a stupid little boy if he actually
thought he could get away with saying what he did.
> He ought not have to be repeatedly exposed to sexual orientation
> conversations,
So, then, you think that those of us who listen to straight people's
wedding plans should be able to be offensive to them personally in
some way, and to be able to attack their lifestyles and their
"personhood", as it were.
<JS>
Yes, you don't have to listen to anybody's wedding plans if you don't want
to. Tell the bride that you're a queer or a lesbian, and don't want to hear
about her boyfriend. Absolutely.
You might make her cry, but she's still gonna get married to her dreamboat,
but not invite you to the reception.
If she later fires you, then come to the table with your homosexual
rejection of her marriage vows. She might just feel that you're a piss poor
worker, and have a stack of reports to prove it.
</JS>
> especialy after he has expressed his discomfort over the
> issue.
Well, in fairness, we don't know that he did, and even if he did, so
what. The talk was of a wedding, not about sex or even sexuality.
Had the conversation actually been about sexual practices, then the
manager should have been fired. But the fired dude never claims that
this is what occurred.
> He merely disagreed with the lifestyle.
Ah. No. He didn't "merely disagree". He vocalized it. See, there's
a difference between keeping your bigoted thoughts to yourself, and
blasting them out at a member of the group you hate. Rather like a
white bigot will not screech "NIGGER!!!!!!!" while walking through
Harlem, though he might do it in his own trailer park.
> He did not force his view on
> anybody,
He basically told the woman that he thinks she's going to go to hell
because of who she is, and who she chooses as a spouse.
> indeed by his account a view he finds repugnant was forced upon
> him.
Lots of gays in Massachusetts, my friend. That defense won't work.
You're REALLY suggesting that people who have an upcoming or recent
marriage could be found to be harassing or violating the civil rights
of people they tell about it? Dude!
<JS>
So fucking what! ALL VIDALA DID WAS SAY, I REJECT HOMOSEXUALITY. Big deal.
Not everybody likes you, get over yourself. When he denies to serve you in
the store, come back with a complaint. When he ties you to the bumper of his
truck, let us know. When he sets out to verbally assault you without
provocation, then let me know. Until then, deal with life. Life is not fair,
it's not always about you, sometimes it's about somebody else. Sometimes YOU
are the offense, and the person that has offended you is merely responding
to you.
You are blind to your own argument! You want to be recognized, but refuse to
recognize anybody that does not agree with you.
I'd like to remind you that the ONLY states in America where Gay Marriage is
allowed are states where it has been forced by an uber-liberal judicial
system upon the residents. In EVERY state where there has been a referendum
on the ballot, gay marriage has gone down in defeat, usually huge defeat.
Until the gay community realizes the truth that they are so blinded by the
agenda that they are downright rude to any dissent, the dissent will remain.
You demand equality, but equality is conditional -- you reject equality for
those that are truly offended by what you represent. Get a fucking clue.
31 states have held ballot measures, some of them multiple times, and each
time your agenda has been defeated. You need 38 states to affirm a
constitutiional right to gay marriage, alternatively, the dissenters only
need 7 states to affirm a consititional block to gay marriage. Do the math
before you proceed on the path of offending the people you need to vote for
you, or not vote against you.
</JS>
> > Assuming Vidala's version of the events is true,
>
> Well, let's see... we've only got the one side.
>
> <JS>
> FOR THE RECORD
>
> I have not seen the story reported anywhere except for the link that was
> posted here. I acknowledge that we only have one side of the issue, and that
> it's a leap of faith that it's the only side.
>
> But, if the side we have is accurate, I stand by the notion that the man
> that was fired was wrongly fired.
>
> </JS>
>
> It's been reported
> only by Fox and other such reputable news organizations. Oh, and I
> saw a version hosted by Ann Coulter. I haven't actually seen anything
> even naming the "offending" manager, nothing about a lawsuit, but
> MassResistance has taken up the cause.
>
> Here's the fired dude on video:
>
> http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-politics/151846-massachusetts-man...
>
> > he's got grounds for a suit
> > alleging a violation of his civil rights.
>
> His civil right to .. .what?
>
> > He was unjustly fired for
> > rejecting his boss's lifestyle choice.
>
> How so? If not "harassment", his behavior certainly was
> "inappropriate and unprofessional". Kinda like telling the boss to
> fuck off, really, and there are no legal protections for that kind of
> behavior, are there? The guy was a second deputy manager, telling a
> manager that her lifestyle is "bad". Doesn't take a rocket scientist
> to extrapolate that he thinks that being gay is bad, and that
> therefore SHE is bad because of who she is. If you can imagine this
> happening to a Jew marrying a Christian, or black guy marrying a white
> gal, the same course of action would have been taken.
>
> > That's wrong. Just as if he was the
> > gay person and his boss fired him because of it.
>
> Well, since sexual orientation is a protected class like race, if you
> just substitute the lesbian manager with a black man, and her fiancee
> with a white woman, and you tell the black man that you think blacks
> and whites shouldn't be able to marry each other, ...
>
> <JS>
> So, only homosexual orientation is protected?
How do you reach that conclusion from what I posted? If I'd said the
earth is a planet, would you have extrapolated from that that ONLY the
earth is a planet?
> How, exactly does that work?
It doesn't. You misread or misinterpreted something in order to be
able to argue a point, and what that point is is anyone's guess.
> Please keep your arguments within the specific confines of the discussion at
> hand.
Providing an example to clarify is not going outside the "confines" of
a discussion.
> The man fired was fired for not having a sexual orientation that is
> homosexual in nature?
Quite the leap there. I can see that you have no desire for truth.
He was fired for being an idiot. Now, he might be able to sue if that
idiocy is considered a disability, but otherwise, he's simply toast.
> How do you square that?
>
> </JS>
>
> > If he had a history of telling the gays in his workplace that they are
> > going
> > to burn in Hell, or whatever, then his firing would be appropriate.
>
> He has to have a whole "history"? This once is OK, but if he has a
> "history", then it's OK to fire him?
>
> <JS>
>
> But all he did, according to the story, is tell his lesbian boss that he
> rejected homosexuality
If you tell your boss that you reject him or her, you can be fired.
It's inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. Again, if the
person's idiocy is deemed a disability, perhaps they'd have a case.
> and he did not want to hear about her gay lover
> anymore.
Too bad. Since sexual orientation is protected, it doesn't matter if
he wants to hear about her fiancee/partner/wife or not. The
discussion was not one of sex. And I think that most of it didn't
actually involve him directly.
The man knows he's wrong, and knows he doesn't have a case.
Otherwise, the manager in question would have been named, or a lawsuit
-- or indication of a lawsuit or even potential lawsuit -- would be
filling the airwaves of even the reputable news sources.
> </JS>
>
> > But if
> > the story is accurate as related here -- and we have no way ot know that
> > it's accurate or not -- then he should not be fired for holding a view
> > expressed exactly once and in direct response to an afront he felt being
> > directed at him.
>
> He says in the video that the woman "mentioned" her fiancee "four" (or
> "at least four") times. "Mentioned". How is that an affront? The
> affront occurred when he told her that her lifestyle was, basically,
> sinful, immoral, "bad". He's a stupid little boy if he actually
> thought he could get away with saying what he did.
>
> > He ought not have to be repeatedly exposed to sexual orientation
> > conversations,
>
> So, then, you think that those of us who listen to straight people's
> wedding plans should be able to be offensive to them personally in
> some way, and to be able to attack their lifestyles and their
> "personhood", as it were.
>
> <JS>
> Yes, you don't have to listen to anybody's wedding plans if you don't want
> to. Tell the bride that you're a queer or a lesbian, and don't want to hear
> about her boyfriend. Absolutely.
I'm just going to flush the rest.
Your lack of integrity, at this hour, is boring me.
<FLUSH!!>
You have a legal right to say that you don't like gays. You can't be
arrested for it.
But the right to free speech does not mean that a company is obligated
to retain you if you offend people and act inappropriately and
unprofessionally.
IOW, you can LEGALLY say what you want, and that legal right is
PROTECTED, but in other of life's arenas, what you say CAN hurt you.
Where is Gloria Allred now and the ACLU now?
> For instance, homosexual behavior is taught as normative in
> Massachussets schools. Parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin lost a case
> against the school after their 2nd-grade son was taught about homosexual
> behavior without their permission.
They're pulling the same crap in California and New York.
> Even in states such as New Mexico, where same-sex "marriage" is not
> legal, a husband-and-wife photography company was successfully sued for
> refusing to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. Similarly, a
> Methodist association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt
> status for part of its property by refusing to allow a homosexual
> "couple" to use its pavilion for a civil union ceremony.
The "tolerance" that liberals and gays are always spouting apparently
doesn't work both ways.
> Vidala was also disturbed by a video Brookstone shows to all new
> employees to help illustrate its personnel policies. According to
> Vidala, in it a man who describes himself as gay says that he was
> offended by overhearing another man say, "Well, gee, you know, I'd be
> uncomfortable if a homosexual hit on me."
>
> Vidala continued: "You could have a so-called homosexual person hit on
> you [if you work for Brookstone], and you won't be able to say anything,
> because by expressing your belief that what they're doing is wrong,
> you're harassing them."
>
> Vidala, get yourself a good lawyer, you'll own that corporation of gay
> bigotry.
A gay bigot? Shock and dismay.
> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
> Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
> behavior to be wrong.
> Good. And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
> insubordination.
If he's smart, he'll sue her for harrassment.
> And of course, this was cross-posted to:
> talk.politics.guns
> alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
> alt.gossip.celebrities
> Because Lord knows, if I am a famous gay New England football player
> who carries a 'Colt 45, I absolutely must know about this for fear of
> losing my starting position and getting transferred to San Francisco?
Why San Francisco? The new queer capital of America is Boston. Queers
can't marry in San Francisco. Even Californians had sense enough to stand
up to them and say enough is enough.
Oh, but they have laws against that sort of thing. Right? I mean an angry
person who figures he or she has nothing else left to lose, is really going
to take that into consideration when they confront the object of their rage.
I'd bet those laws are just waiting to jump out there and stop a speeding
car or swinging bat.
They should fire the manager too. She created the situation.
> --
> "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
> gospel
> of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery." Winston
> Churchill
> Gray Ghost said:
>> Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net> wrote in
>> news:d340d979-7169-4cf5...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 4:33pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
>>> wrote:
>>>> Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in
>>>> news:aa481e3d-d92f-4b4e-b869-
>>>> 2d94d27ee...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 9, 3:46pm, All The More Reason <banliberal...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy
>>>>>> manager at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport
>>>>>> says he was fired from his job for telling a visiting manager
>>>>>> that he believed her homosexual behavior to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> Good. And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
>>>>> insubordination.
>>>>
>>>> Well, so much for tolerance.
>>>>
>>>> This is the kind of thing might start getting gays murdered
>>>
>>> "Start"? Do you live in a shoe?
>>>
>>>> if people think
>>>> that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
>>>
>>> Clue: Gays are already being murdered because they're gay.
>>>
>>
>> Well if they are going to get people fired and make them lose thier
>> ability to support themselves and thier families simply becuase they
>> don't buy into the homo agenda, than I guess that's to bad right?
>>
>> Clue: Gays aren't getting killed in any great numbers like you'd have
>> us believe. In fact i expect the killing of homos for being homos is
>> rather rare.
>>
>> Unless of course you'd like to attempt to prove otherwise.
>
> Rare is a relative term. You didn't specify the scale when you floated
> the theory. Rare in comparison to what? The frequency of the killing of
> bigots for being bigots? The frequency of the killing of fleas for being
> on your dog? It's just nonsense.
>
> So before you challenge someone to prove your theory incorrect, try
> actually stating a theory that means something first, and provide
> evidence to back it up, otherwise, you're just another loudmouth trying
> to stir shit.
>
> MartyB in KC
>
>
Rare as in I don't believe it amounts to a more than a 1 every few years, if
that.
Frankly if the "Christian terrorists" were as prolific as the Islmic
terrorists there would be a whole lot more bloodshed in this country. The
fact that there isn't proves what a bunch of clots you fools are. That or you
are seeking to advance your lives through advantages conveyed by government
edict and enforced with prison, fines or being excluded from the workforce.
Now prove me wrong or go home.
Frankly I've worked with all kinds of people and gotten along fine with them.
We kept it professional and got the job done. it's always the shitheads who
want to bring thier private lives and prejudices into it that are the
troublemakers.
> On Nov 9, 6:45�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote
>> innews:d340d979-7169-4cf5...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 4:33�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
>> > wrote:
>> >> Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in
>> >> news:aa481e3d-d92f-4b4e-b869-
>> >> 2d94d27ee...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 9, 3:46�pm, All The More Reason <banliberal...@yahoo.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy
>> >> >> manager at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport
>> >> >> says he was fired from his job for telling a visiting manager that
>> >> >> he believed her homosexual behavior to be wrong. �
>>
>> >> > Good. �And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
>> >> > insubordination.
>>
>> >> Well, so much for tolerance.
>>
>> >> This is the kind of thing might start getting gays murdered
>>
>> > "Start"? �Do you live in a shoe?
>>
>> >> �if people think
>> >> that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
>>
>> > Clue: �Gays are already being murdered because they're gay.
>>
>> Well if they are going to get people fired and make them lose thier
>> ability to support themselves and thier families simply becuase they
>> don't buy into the homo agenda,
>
> "Not buying into" something isn't quite the same thing as insulting a
> co-worker (who likely was also a superior).
Maybe the bitch should have kept it to herslef and stopped rubbing his nose
in it. Why do people have to drag thier personal lives and issues into work?
I don't work to make friends, I work to get paid. Sharing private personal
material about oneself is always tricky and frankly not terribly
professional.
>
>> than I guess that's to bad right?
>
> Shows that the guy wasn't too bright and maybe should get some
> education.
Or perhaps reeducation, at a special camp? Yeah now we've gone from simply
being tolerant of the gay lifestyle to having to accept it or at best keep
our mouths shut when others can't keep thier personal likes and dislikes toi
themselves.
Do you have the slightest, vaguest notion of the term backlash? How far it
will set you back? you could just live and let live, you have to shove it
down people's throats, right?
>
>> Clue: Gays aren't getting killed in any great numbers like you'd have us
>> believe.
>
> I didn't give any numbers, great or otherwise, and didn't try to get
> you to believe anything.
So give me a number.
>
>> In fact i expect the killing of homos for being homos is rather rare.
>
> Would depend on your definition of "rare".
Doesn't happen?
>> Unless of course you'd like to attempt to prove otherwise.
>
> Look up "gay bashing".
Isn't that when a bunch of homos get together for a party?
> Gray Ghost said:
>>>
>>
>> His manager was rubbing his face in her homosexual marriage. 4 times
>> If I read the story right. He only said something after the 4th
>> mention. My understanding is that she jnew it was making him
>> uncomfortable.
>
> Your understanding? Based on what, exactly? Your personal interview with
> him? With her? Your review of in store security video? Come on, don't
> keep us in suspense if you have some juicy information to share!
>
> Translation: You're quickly writing your reputation in stone as a
> fabricator of bullshit.
>
> Your understanding is that you have made up what you want to believe and
> then tried to throw it out there as some sort of credible argument, and
> yet again you are trying to imply that your wild-assed presumption is a
> fact.
>
> Cite, or STFU.
>
>>
>> But that's OK, if you fuckers really want t ostart using the law to
>> fuck people over don't be surprised when you get your comeuppance.
>
> Yeah, they are all doing it. It's a conspiracy to fuck people with the
> law.
>
> www.zapatopi.net/afdb
>
> MartyB
>
>
>
From the same news article you probably read, asshole.
> On Nov 9, 6:54�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:hda7ja$ljh$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Salem Retards" <sa...@retards.org> wrote in message
>> >news:hda6c6$hb3$2...@news.telesweet.net...
>>
>> >> "Pat Magroyne" <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:aa481e3d-d92f-4b4e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com..
>> >>.
>> >> On Nov 9, 3:46 pm, All The More Reason <banliberal...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager
>> >>> at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was
>> >>> fired from his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed
>> >>> her homosexual behavior to be wrong.
>>
>> >>> Good. �And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
>> >>> insubordination.
>>
>> >> He'll win any labor or legal action he files.
>>
>> >> I hope he makes a federal issue out of it.
>>
>> > no he won't
>> > �you can get fired for insulting your boss, its a pvt company. he was
>> > the harrasser not the harrassed.
>>
>> Really, she pestered him 4 times about her homo marriage,
>
> The story says she made mention of it. Nothing wrong with mentioning
> one's upcoming nuptials.
>
>> knowing it made him
>> uncomfortable.
>
> Aww, the poor widdle pussy. So, you think that mentioning one's
> upcoming marriage constitutes harassment? Hmm? If so, then LOTS of
> straight folks are gonna get fired.
Lesse, my understanding is if it makes one person uncomfortable it's
harassment. Therefore he was harrassed. You'll look the perfect fool when
this goes to court.
>> He finally told her basically to keep it to herself.
>
> Well, no, "basically" he told her she was sub-human and sinful and
> disgusting. "Basically".
>
No, actually he told her he didn't want to hear about it. Maybe if you took
the dick out of your mouth for a minute your eyesight would improve.
Kathy
> On Nov 9, 3:46 pm, All The More Reason <banliberal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
>> Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
>> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
>> behavior to be wrong.
>
> Good. And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
> insubordination.
Perhaps she will kill him...would you favor that?
****************************
Gay” Activists Mull “Organized Terrorism” Against Christians
Pro-Family Leaders Targets of Death Threats
J. Matt Barber
Lynchburg, VA – In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic
terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant
homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of
Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against
Christians.
In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay”
activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and
the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist
“JoeMyGod” Weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is
investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry
had been removed. (captured version of post will be available at
www.americansfortruth.com).
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, issued a
statement shortly after Maine’s marriage victory (posted with
additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com). In reaction to that
statement, blog poster “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give
me a gun?” Poster “Fritz” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and
lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent
means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters… All
it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to
kill for their cause.”
In reply to Fritz, “tex” posted: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad
thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.”
“This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack
representation,” continued Fritz. “We will have gay and lesbian people
strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will
take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken
away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism
arise very quickly. … In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists
setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los
Angeles.”
“tex” reiterated: “Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz …
[African gay activists] didn’t gain their civil rights through being
passive.”
In addition to Barber, pro-family leaders Peter LaBarbera of Americans
for Truth and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for
Marriage were specifically named targets.
Meanwhile, Michael Heath, former director of the Christian Civic League
of Maine, was targeted by a direct death threat shortly after the
passage of Question 1 last week. An anonymous caller telephoned the
League, warning:
“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian
Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our
rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a
gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”
Law enforcement was immediately notified of the threat against Heath.
Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder
are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are
ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of
Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are
capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either
threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to
justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be
on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be
taken very seriously.”
Gay writer says “well-organized terrorism” against pro-family leaders
is “just what we need”
> On Nov 9, 4:33�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
> wrote:
>> Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote in news:aa481e3d-d92f-4b4e-b869
> -
>> 2d94d27ee...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 3:46�pm, All The More Reason <banliberal...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at
> a
>>>> Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired fr
> om
>>>> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
>>>> behavior to be wrong. �
>>
>>> Good. �And let's hope he doesn't get unemployment, due to his
>>> insubordination.
>>
>> Well, so much for tolerance.
>>
>> This is the kind of thing might start getting gays murdered
>
> "Start"? Do you live in a shoe?
>
>> if people think
>> that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
>
> Clue: Gays are already being murdered because they're gay.
That's not so bad. Heterosexuals are being murdered for hundreds of
reasons. Stop your bitching, bitch.
Cripes, you fucking moron, read your own thread. You claimed there was some
relevant numbers to be known, but you didn't say what they were. That's
becaue you made it up. Then you want someone to give YOU a fucking number?
How stupid do you think people are? Doesn't it piss off everyone you
encounter? How many times a day do you get beat down for being a worthless
loudmouthed twit?
Really, people who pull this kind of disengenuous phony assed shit make me
want to puke.
You're dismissed, turd. Go polish yourself.
>>> Clue: Gays aren't getting killed in any great numbers like you'd
>>> have us believe. In fact i expect the killing of homos for being
>>> homos is rather rare.
>>>
>>> Unless of course you'd like to attempt to prove otherwise.
>>
>> Rare is a relative term. You didn't specify the scale when you
>> floated the theory. Rare in comparison to what? The frequency of the
>> killing of bigots for being bigots? The frequency of the killing of
>> fleas for being on your dog? It's just nonsense.
>>
>> So before you challenge someone to prove your theory incorrect, try
>> actually stating a theory that means something first, and provide
>> evidence to back it up, otherwise, you're just another loudmouth
>> trying to stir shit.
>>
>> MartyB in KC
>>
>>
>
> Rare as in I don't believe it amounts to a more than a 1 every few
> years, if that.
>
You don't believe? What's that supposed to mean? You mean you looked it up
and it's a fact? Or are you still making shit up and trying to pose it as
relevant information? Obviously, the latter is true, and besides, you've now
established a pattern.
It is a fact that based on your pattern of disinformation and general shit
stirring, the odds are that whatever you say will be presumptive fabricated
bullshit masquerading as information.
> Frankly if the "Christian terrorists" were as prolific as the Islmic
> terrorists there would be a whole lot more bloodshed in this country.
> The fact that there isn't proves what a bunch of clots you fools are.
What?? ROFLMAO!!!! Hey dimbulb, adjust your foil helmet.
And there you go again... fact... proves... what the fuck? You claim you
just proved something?
> That or you are seeking to advance your lives through advantages
> conveyed by government edict and enforced with prison, fines or being
> excluded from the workforce.
>
> Now prove me wrong or go home.
There it is, I was waiting for it, after you foisted a series of lies,
presumptions, and opinions and pretended they were facts, you challenge
someone to prove that your unsubstantiated nonsense is false. Now pay
attention, you pathetic brain wart. You made a claim, several of them, but
you didn't back up any of them, and were called out for it. It's not your
turn to ask for proof, you haven't even backed up the first line of shit you
floated yet.
But you bore me and you're far too stupid even to play bitch fetch with me,
your intellectual superior. Therefore you are hereby banished to the
shitpile. Please try not to stink out there.
<plonk>
> But that's OK, know the agenda is out in the open. We've got your
> number now.
The tinfoil hat office is now open for business. Take a number.
> He'll win any labor or legal action he files.
>
> I hope he makes a federal issue out of it.
Cite. Or STFU and go lay down somewhere.
> clouddreamer <saveth...@save.money.too> wrote in
> news:P5qdnVOiN9IjHWXX...@supernews.com:
>
>> All The More Reason wrote:
>>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110904.html
>>>
>>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a
>>> Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
>>> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
>>> behavior to be wrong.
>>
>>
>> Lets see him tell a black co-worker that he thinks it was wrong to end
>> slavery...and see how long he keeps his job.
>>
>> No difference. The bigot should keep his racist ideas to himself.
>>
>> ..
>>
>
> So you are comparing the fact that you prefer it up the ass with people
> having darker skin?
They always do, you can set your watch by it The Big Book of Homosexual
Dogma (BBHD) demands that it be injected into any discussion that is
even the last critical of homosexuality.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:46:11 +0000 (UTC),
> All The More Reason <banlib...@yahoo.com> PARROTED:
>
>
>> BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager
>> at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from
>> his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual
>> behavior to be wrong. Brookstone, however, has justified its action by
>> referring to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex "marriage."
>>
>> "It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong.
>> That's the reason that I was fired," Peter Vidala told MassResistance.org.
>
> GOOD!!! May that hateful and mindless bigot ROT in unemployment
> lines for the rest of his miserable and abjectly-ignorant life!
>
> KUDOS to Brookstone!!!
Whooooops! Crazy Craig Chilton has arrived. Watch him folks he's only
here to hawk his snake oil pamphlet on, "Whoring your way across the
USA." I suspect that he has already emailed the (subject)fired guy
offering him a "special deal" on a copy.
Does getting fucked in the ass cause brain damage?
He's not smart -- offending a superior is never a good idea. And
there is zero indication, not even an inkling, that he was in any way
harassed.
Aw, the widdle straight, white male feels oppressed. Sadly, he doesn't
seem to have learned that insulting your manager's relationship to her
face may not be the best way to keep your job.
--
Society, like water, needs to move and change to remain fresh. To keep
it from doing so is to allow it to become stagnant and malodorous. The
religious right would have us all living in a swamp to assuage their own
fears.
�The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you
shine on it, the more it will contract.� �Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
"Never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god and says it's
absolute truth" -Voltaire, "/God Thinks/"
No need to. If you think that talking about one's spouse or
significant other shouldn't be allowed in the workplace, have fun in
your new movement, bearing in mind that it will affect far more
straights than it will gays.
> and stopped rubbing his nose
> in it.
There's no indication that he rubbed his nose in anything.
> Why do people have to drag thier personal lives and issues into work?
To help them connect with other people at work?
> I don't work to make friends, I work to get paid. Sharing private personal
> material about oneself is always tricky and frankly not terribly
> professional.
Well, take that up with your HR department. People become friends at
work (well, except for you, as you just told us) and they share stuff
with each other. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying,
but certainly I've never told someone in the workplace that I thought
their lifestyle was "bad". And to do that to a superior is just
asking to be canned (and my suspicion is that that is why he did it,
actually).
>
>
> >> than I guess that's to bad right?
>
> > Shows that the guy wasn't too bright and maybe should get some
> > education.
>
> Or perhaps reeducation, at a special camp? Yeah now we've gone from simply
> being tolerant of the gay lifestyle
Ah, you assumed that I was talking about education about the gay
lifestyle. Nope. I was talking about getting some smarts about
working with other people. Especially one's superiors.
> to having to accept it or at best keep
> our mouths shut
If you're going to be insulting to someone in a professional
environment, you will have to pay the consequences. This is nothing
new. Been that way for centuries.
> when others can't keep thier personal likes and dislikes toi
> themselves.
The real world must be a difficult place for you. Psychiatrists can
sometimes help with that.
>
> Do you have the slightest, vaguest notion of the term backlash?
Zzzzzzz
> How far it
> will set you back?
Yet the fight for equality continues to march FORWARD. Go figure.
> you could just live and let live, you have to shove it
> down people's throats, right?
Well, in the current case, you'd have the woman whose lifestyle you
don't approve of just keep it to herself, so I'm certain, given your
penchant for fairness, that you would want that new rule to apply to
all equally, meaning we could be relieved of hearing about
heterosexual wedding plans, babies, baptisms, and even church
attendance. Cuz that shit can get pretty boring.
>
>
>
> >> Clue: Gays aren't getting killed in any great numbers like you'd have us
> >> believe.
>
> > I didn't give any numbers, great or otherwise, and didn't try to get
> > you to believe anything.
>
> So give me a number.
There's no need to get a number, but if you want one, look it up. Not
gonna do your research for ya.
>
>
> >> In fact i expect the killing of homos for being homos is rather rare.
>
> > Would depend on your definition of "rare".
>
> Doesn't happen?
Ah, then you don't mind that gays are now included in hate-crime
legislation, since they're never attacked (or murdered) just for being
gay.
You misunderstand yet again. Not amazing, just making note.
> Therefore he was harrassed.
How so?
> You'll look the perfect fool when
> this goes to court.
I don't think it will go to court. I don't think there are any plans
for it to go to court. And if it does go to court, it will be thrown
out. Companies have the right to have guidelines for employee
conduct, and to enforce them.
> >> He finally told her basically to keep it to herself.
>
> > Well, no, "basically" he told her she was sub-human and sinful and
> > disgusting. "Basically".
>
> No, actually he told her he didn't want to hear about it.
Well, that's what he says. Doesn't matter, though, because there's
nothing wrong or generally offensive about talking about one's
betrothed. The thing is, she was his superior, and to insult a
superior is grounds for dismissal.
> Maybe if you took
> the dick out of your mouth for a minute your eyesight would improve.
Let me guess: You're morbidly obese, right? Yeah. Thought so.
Yeah, the numbers of straights who are killed or attacked, where the
motive is their heterosexuality, must number in the billions.
Anyway, they are now protected, as well, due to recent hate-crime
legislation. :o)
That's standard in the American workforce, and accepted, and there are
no corporate guidelines, apparently, suggesting that it's
inappropriate, so...
> She then decided it would be cute to emasculate the
> true victim.
I love it when straight men feel emasculated by women! It's so easy
to do, and it happens so often, I mean, ya just gotta sit back and
say, "What a fuckin' PUSSY you are, DUDE!!" LOL!
What is is a Red Herring. You brought it in. It's starting to
stink.
<FLUSH!>