Man fired for writing anit-gay article

[bash]

Not that it should necessarily matter but a Google search on the guy reveals he's quite an active Christian conservative writer/blogger. So, it's a bit more than just one post on a bbs. He's pretty incendiary regarding Dems, liberals, gays, etc. Apparently his writings came to Allstate's attention via a gay activist watchdog group that's been playing big brother and initiated a letter writing campaign to Allstate to fire him, which it did. Allstate, it also turns out, has been very pro-gay marketing-wise and has been a financial contributor to several gay activist groups. Not that that should matter either but, frankly, it sounds like the guy was working for the wrong company to start with. In addition, apparently Terry Schiavo's attorney (yep, the thick plottens) is representing this guy's wrongful termination suit against Allstate. Also, there was an article along my search indicating that he had already won some sort of non-binding judgement against Allstate which he will be using in his legal suit to back up his claim. One top of everything else, he's a former heavyweight boxer, a lawyer (non-practicing) and a jazz drummer! I'm surprised there hasn't been more ink on this whole mess. My guess is that Allstate will likely quietly settle out of court. It's one thing to woo gays through stealth marketing and political contributions but I'm not sure Allstate wants to be seen in this context by the general insurance-buying public.

[Palzon]

The company has a right to act pre-emptively to ensure he doesn't get the chance.

From the website-

Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years,..

He's had 1305 days of work(minus his holidays, weekends are already excluded) and that's more than enough chances to be resonably sure he will not act inappropriately. A five year track record isn't sufficiant?

i'm not saying he should have been fired. i just don't think it was wrongful.

how do you know he didn't act inappropriately in any of those 1305 days? the company probably felt they'd be guilty by association for keeping on an ignorant a-hole like this guy. firing him at least helps them save some face.

Only an idiot would say this:

For one to believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular, follows the biological order of things," wrote Barber, "one must ignore the fact that sodomy violates natural law â?? you know â?¦ wrong plumbing â?¦ square hole/round peg. The whole thing really is a testament to man's creativity. Give us something good, and we'll bend over backwards to twist it into something else.

...yeah, like this guy never had a blowjob before. and i'll bet he wasn't concerned about the biological efficacy of it at the time. the bible also disallows masturbation (at least by men).

the only biological order gay sex violates is the biological order laid out in the bible. otherwise, it's just animal nature - just like hetero sex! outside the bible, procreation is not the only purpose of sex.

someday the "gay" gene will be revealed. Then there will be no way for Christians to say evolution was part of intelligent design without admitting that being gay is OK with god. what a dilemma that will be!

Also:

diversity training...is really indoctrination hostile toward thousands of employees' Christian beliefs.

Gimme a break. You want a really cynical (read Anti-All State) examination of this?

Diversity training is what companies do to cover themselves in case morons like this guy decide to make their bigotry known to the general public they serve. Then the company can say, "Not our fault, we gave him the diversity training! Then you know what they do? They FIRE the moron.

Anyone who has had such training knows this, and I have had the training. Companies typcically don't care about diversity. They care about making money and not being sued. It is a cynical effort companies make to protect themselves from just such blockheads as Bam-Bam Barber.

[Fusion pimp]

Anyone who has had such training knows this, and I have had the training.........

..... an ignorant a-hole like this guy.

We can all see how much of an affect it had.

[Palzon]

as soon ingorant a-holes become the minority, my sensitivity training will kick in

am i insensitive to Bam Bam? I probably am. But only because I think...

he is killing America.

Doesn't anyone understand that as soon as it is OK to discriminate against one minority that any minority is fair game?

And hey, despite not being able to tell the difference between equal rights and political correctness, Bam Bam should look on the bright side:

At the risk of being arrested, charged with a â??hate-crimeâ?

[Lothar]

the bible also disallows masturbation (at least by men).

Wrong. People often misinterpret the story of Onan as prohibiting masturbation because Onan was called wicked and struck down for "spilling his semen on the ground". But just reading the story should make it clear what was going on -- Onan was supposed to get his brother's widow pregnant so his brother would have an heir (that was the cultural norm back then.) But, he was pulling out in order to avoid getting her pregnant, because he wanted more of the inheritance to himself. He wasn't wankin' it, he was just using birth control for nefarious purposes. That's what's being prohibited.

... outside the bible, procreation is not the only purpose of sex.

Inside the Bible, procreation is not the only purpose of sex. You'll notice that when Sarah is told she'll have a son even though she's like 90 years old, her response is not "I can't have a son, I don't have sex" but rather "I can't have a son, I'm old." In other words, they're obviously still doing it, and not for procreative purposes...

someday the "gay" gene will be revealed. Then there will be no way for Christians to say evolution was part of intelligent design without admitting that being gay is OK with god.

There's a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, and one toward violence, yet I don't see any Christians worried that that must mean God is OK with alcoholism or murder. In fact, a large part of Christian theology is that humans are predisposed to sin, from birth -- so wouldn't finding a gay gene reinforce that perception, rather than damaging it?

To bring things back on topic...

As far as I know, any company has the right to fire any person for any reason whatsoever, except for race and gender. After all, the company is paying them for their labor, and they, like anyone else, can choose to take their business elsewhere (ie, hire someone else to do the labor instead) for basically any reason. Don't like someone's hair? Fired. Don't like their political views? Fired. Don't like their religion? Fired. Having a bad day and want to take it out on someone at random? Fire them. Nothing illegal about that; it's your money, and you can spend it hiring whoever you want. (It might be different in some states, I don't know...)

Now, I'd prefer if the law was a little more restrictive... I'd prefer if you had to give a valid reason to fire someone, or at least offer a bigger severance package than normal if you want to fire them for crappy reasons. I'd prefer if the government would rule in favor of those fired as a result of religious or other discrimination. (Goob, I'm a conservative, not an anarchist -- I think the government should be small, but not completely nonexistant.)

But, since it's not that way, I'll deal with it on a more personal level. Fire someone because of their religion, Allstate? Well, State Farm isn't too bad. Fire my dad because you're cutting costs, Qwest? Looks like I'm going with Verizon. Fire my grandma 6 months before she becomes eligible for retirement because you don't want to have to pay for her retired life, Avon? There's a Bath and Body Works in the mall. You can choose to spend your money on the employees you prefer (even for petty reasons), and I can choose to spend my money on the products I want from the companies I want (even for petty reasons.) Welcome to the free market.

And yeah, I realize Allstate was in a bit of a bind here. A gay advocacy group was threatening them if they didn't fire the guy. But I think the proper response would have been to say "we at Allstate are committed to diversity, and that includes diversity of opinions. Our employees are entitled to their own religious and political beliefs, as long as they express them on their own time and not on ours." The guy's views are moronic, but you shouldn't fire someone over a moronic opinion unless it hinders their job performance. The fact that Allstate didn't do this, or at least pay the guy off enough to buy his silence, makes me question whether or not I want to keep sending them money.

edit:

as soon as it is OK to discriminate against one minority that any minority is fair game?

I think that's exactly what we're saying, too. Why do you think it's OK to discriminate against people like this guy with a minority opinion about gays?

[Palzon]

Lothar thanks for the corrects re: masturbation and and the purpose of sex. as far as...

There's a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, and one toward violence, yet I don't see any Christians worried that that must mean God is OK with alcoholism or murder. In fact, a large part of Christian theology is that humans are predisposed to sin, from birth -- so wouldn't finding a gay gene reinforce that perception, rather than damaging it?

...this opens so many worm cans that we could have about three interesting threads from the two sentences alone. however, i don't think this point creates a real stumbling block for us in this thread. i would retract the statement pending further discussion if that is suitable.

as to your suggested solution...

And yeah, I realize Allstate was in a bit of a bind here. A gay advocacy group was threatening them if they didn't fire the guy. But I think the proper response would have been to say "we at Allstate are committed to diversity, and that includes diversity of opinions. Our employees are entitled to their own religious and political beliefs, as long as they express them on their own time and not on ours." The guy's views are moronic, but you shouldn't fire someone over a moronic opinion unless it hinders their job performance. The fact that Allstate didn't do this, or at least pay the guy off enough to buy his silence, makes me question whether or not I want to keep sending them money.

I think it is the best put forward. But I would not go beyond the part that is in bold. Paying him off is not a way I'd like to see All State go. And just to be clear, I'm all for ANYONE who has a problem with how All State handled the situation to stop patronizing them as they see fit. Just as All State had a right to fire him, those who disagree have a right to shop elsewhere.[/quote]

re: Lothar's last edit...

As you said, All State was put in a bind by this. As I stated earlier, the company was in a no-win situation. They were either going to anger gays or anti-gays with how they handled it. I don't think firing him is discrimination. they didn't fire him for holding those views. they fired him for holding those views AND doing so in a public way that reflected on them. the company was worried about money, not his viewpoint.

besides, though i don't know the logical formulation of it - i'm certain that there is formal refutation of an argument that would say fighting against discrimination is discrimination.

[Fusion pimp]

Doesn't anyone understand that as soon as it is OK to discriminate against one minority that any minority is fair game?

In your attempt to appear noble and politically correct, you've displayed exactly what I'm trying to show you. That is, it is not wrong to discriminate against only minorities, it's wrong to discriminate against anyone. Why is this guy an "a-hole" for voicing an opinion(regardless of how much you disagree) and Allstate and gays are okay for voicing theirs?

The truth is, you're exactly the opposite of what you're pretending to be, that is- tolorant!

[Fusion pimp]

Sorry, Lothar.. I didn't see the portion of your post that already addressed this.

[Palzon]

calling someone intolerant does not make you intolerant.

his opinion is that gays should remain second class citizens. if it makes you feel better, i'll stop calling him an a-hole and be more precise - he is an opponent of freedom and rights. he opposes equal rights for all. and so do those who agree with him.

so just call it what it is. say that you only want equality for those who live JUST like you do.

whatever your interpretation of christianity, you should really examine your interpretation of democracy.

i have never stated that he has no right to his opinion. i have never stated that he has no right to make his opinion public. i have merely said that i disagree with it. further, i think he is putting ALL minorities in peril by advocating an agenda of discrimination. you don't hear me calling for limitations on his (or others of his ilk) ability to marry, reproduce, raise children, do you? you don't hear me asking for his rights to be taken away or limited do you? THAT is discrimination.

take for example, white supremacists who raise their children by indoctrinating them with hatred. even though i believe this is wrong, you don't hear me saying such people shouldn't be legally allowed to marry, reproduce, or raise children.

your argument has no logic behind it.

by your logic fighting against racism was discrimination because racists had a right to their opinion. your argument might apply better if i was motivated by political correctness. but im not. im motivated out of genuine fear that legislating inequality for one minority puts all others in peril.

but you forget that racists limited blacks equality, which is more than expressing an opinion. in this country, gays are second class citizens. i believe it should change because this is America in the year 2005, not the year 1805. whether you like it or not, they have as much proof to the legitimacy of their lifestyle as you do to yours. they shouldn't be denied equal rights.

gay rights threatens you only in your mind.

there's nothing noble about believing in democracy, it's a duty all Americans should accept.

on a day to day basis, i see abuse and neglect of children, by heterosexuals. i don't think ive ever taken a report that involved a gay person. yet in the thread about sterilization i was totally opposed on the same basis. we are a free society.

not if you had your way.

[Fusion pimp]

lol! Palz, you're killing me!

calling someone intolerant does not make you intolerant.

It certainly doesn't! Calling someone "an ignorant a-hole" because that person is expressing his opinion about the gay lifestyle certainly does.

[roid]

we now seem to be getting into the territory of defining whether a measure of "being intolerant" can be based purely on your actionless OPINIONs, or whether ACTION must be involved for it to be catagorised as intolerant.

i think most people would wear the expression "only intolerant towards intolerance" proudly. i feel i would, it's an acceptable caveat.
we're fighting a war here.

calling someone "an ignorant a-hole" because they are intolerant? i see no problem.
Fusion Pimp, the guy was not just expressing his opinion about the gay lifestyle, he was expressing his intolerant opinion.

here's a logical layout of the situation:
(please correct or tweak this if you don't think it's accurate)

it really is an issue of INtolerant camps and tolerant camps. the tolerant camps gets along with all other tollerant camps. however none of the tolerant camps get along with the INtolerant camps. also the INtolerant camps don't even get along with eachother - the INtolerant camps therefore isolate themselves into seperate groups.
everyone hates the INtolerant camps, with good reason. it's not intolerance to be hating them... there is logic behind it:

any attack against the intolerant camp really is just a COUNTER-attack, since their intolerance DEFINES them as always attacking others first.
if it wasn't in the INtolerant camps' very nature to constantly attack all other camps, then no-one would hate them.

the INtolerant camps are basically the only ones who can't play along with the other camps. they are antisocial.

The tolerant camps must be ever vigilent in remembering the motives for hating the INtolerant camps. The motives must always be: "because they actively hate us". The motive should not be: "because they hated us first", because that is INtolerance; It's ignoring the present and focusing on biggoted stigma; It is counterproductive to encouraging reform in the INtolerant camps.

Summary... tolerant camps are not intolerant just because they defend themselves from the INtolerant camps, as long as their motives are always self-defensive. self-defence is not intolerance. but continuing a self-defensive attack AFTER the target has been converted to tolerance - that's intolerance - because it's now attacking the camp without cause (the only just cause would be if you were attacking INtolerance, and that is now lacking in your target). so you must be careful to not label a camp as an enemy - only label their intolerance as the enemy. otherwise once the intolerance subsides you will still be attacking the camp for no reason - thereby making YOU intolerant.

one could explain this so much better with a flash animation.

[Stryker]

And yet who is being more intolerant? the straight people who just want things to go on as they have been in marraige, or the gays, which are pushing their agenda at every turn at us? Which is the offense, and which is the defense?

[Testiculese]

Straight people, Stryker. There would be no reason for pushing otherwise.

[Gooberman]

the straight people who just want things to go on as they have been in marraige, or the gays, which are pushing their agenda at every turn at us?

I just cant see how they are pushing their agenda on you. If they required you to marry someone of the same sex, ok, I see that. But all they are asking is that you stop obstructing them from doing as they please.

[roid]

And yet who is being more intolerant? the straight people who just want things to go on as they have been in marraige, or the gays, which are pushing their agenda at every turn at us? Which is the offense, and which is the defense?

simple:
the intolerance is the main offensive, the cause of the war.
the "gay agenda" of tolerance is on the defensive (in theory. coz we'll only know once the war is over, see if ppl "put down their guns" or not).

you are somewhat on the defence, in defending straight only marriage.
however, it's likened to defending a water source - to the detriment of all who want to use it, you won't let them. really you should just step down and chill out, there's enough water for everyone.
you don't own the water well, but have the force to defend it... big bully
you can't claim self-defence defending a public service from ppl you don't want to use it.

defending marriage from homosexuals is like defending polling booths from black voters.

[Gooberman]

LOL!

[Palzon]

lol! Palz, you're killing me!

calling someone intolerant does not make you intolerant.

It certainly doesn't! Calling someone "an ignorant a-hole" because that person is expressing his opinion about the gay lifestyle certainly does.

if it makes you feel better, i'll stop calling him an a-hole and be more precise - he is an opponent of freedom and rights. he opposes equal rights for all. and so do those who agree with him.

[Birdseye]

And yet who is being more intolerant? the straight people who just want things to go on as they have been in marraige, or the gays, which are pushing their agenda at every turn at us?

Yeah, Martin Luther King was an intolerant as5hole too.

[Behemoth]

it would seem so by palz's standards....

[Palzon]

it would seem so by palz's standards....

either you don't read or you don't quite have the whole sarcasm thing down

[roid]

LOL!

huh?

[Birdseye]

If anyone is wondering where their reply went, since gay marriage was taking over the topic at hand, I split the topics.

ON topic:

Has anyone found any updates on the case?

[Behemoth]

Apparently not..