DescentBB

Does anyone here know anything about this? Something sounds fishy.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44961

And I was worried that the city pages published my letter to the editor that contained the f-word.

Forced tolerance by intolerance. Brilliant!

The guy's a pretty big jerk, in my opnion, but, he should be allowed to spout whatever nonsense he wants without fear of getting fired.

Why is he a jerk?

For being intolerant.

But you are intolerant of Christians.

Vert,
Can you tell me the difference between you speaking out against him for what he believes and him speaking out against them for what he believes?

So now employees can be fired for stating their honest opinions on a subject, even when said opinions have absolutely no impact on the person's job? Seems like a nice case of religious discrimination, if you ask me.

Also, not to start a flamewar, but Vertigo, why is it that you consider a person believing that homosexual activities are wrong to be automatically intolerant?

Screw freedom of speech huh?

Why are you gang banging this guy? He never said he was intolerant of Christians.

BTW: It's not real hard to get sick of Christianity. Pure numbers of Christians in the United States inundates the rest of us with your belief system. Itâ??s hard to play victim when you are everywhere and the calendar dances to the beat of your drummer. Knock it off.

I think it's bull★■◆● the guy in the article got cut and I believe he will win his case.

Religious people by far are the most intolerant people out there. There are some things that people do or say that I don't agree with but it's cool if they think their own way, it's their life...religious people tend to think that everyone should think their way in terms of relationships, abortion, the whole nine yards. And if you don't, you're simply wrong. I don't like it...and it's not just Christians. It's most of the religious groups that I know...that's why I tend to not follow these people.

"Love thy neighbor...unless he's gay or pro-choice"

A brahmin once asked The Blessed One:
"Are you a God?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"Are you a saint?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"Are you a magician?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"What are you then?"
"I am awake."


..........................


"All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.

There is pleasure when an itch is scratched,
But to be without itches is more pleasurable still.
Just so, there are pleasures in worldly desires,
But to be without desires is more pleasurable still"

here's hoping he gets his job back or something. this kindof thing can't go on.

i agree with the article's main assertion, that what this guy did on his own time with no reference to his employer is none of their business.

next thing you hear you'll all be getting drug tested at work, and getting fired for the metabolites that hang around from the buds you smoked over 2 weeks ago. as if it has anything to do with your work performance.
oh wait, that is happening!

roid wrote:next thing you hear you'll all be getting drug tested at work, and getting fired for the metabolites that hang around from the buds you smoked over 2 weeks ago. as if it has anything to do with your work performance.
oh wait, that is happening!

Already there man.

the guy has no case.

My friend ben got fired by Wells Fargo for starring in a fake beheading video that was major national news (fox news had it practically on loop for 24hrs)

It happens if you are in a position where you serve the general public and you do something that offends a bunch of people... he is not the first, nor the last.

and why shouldn't all of these people be fired?

I mean say you are a ku klux klan grand wizard and you go on jerry springer talking about how you hate black people. Surprise, your job as a cash register ringer is gone at Arby's... because you just offended the customers. You are now a less valuable employee. Same with this guy -- he has probably served many gay customers, and probably will have to in the future.

he was a manager. i don't think they interact with the public.

if he was their public spokesman - then i can see the justification for firing him (since they were hiring his IMAGE, and once tainted he has lost his appeal). *

but as a manager it should be irrelevant. if he had problems with people he interacts with at work, then he should be fired for that. i imagine a managerial position in a company like that is rather hard to attain/retain if his personal predudices effected his work - so i'd assume they didn't effect his work at all.

birdseye did your friend appeal his firing?


* (afterthought: perhaps he actually was a public image for the company. given his boxing fame, and the article did mention that the company had previously been proud to mention his employment. if they could no longer be proud to mention him, and they are letting him go, perhaps this points to him being no more than an "internal mascot" public image. you know... like that Reebok Terry Tate advertisement. an unofficial public spokesman)

no he did not, they usually give reaaally good severance packages in situations like this, 6 months to a year's pay

Zuruck wrote:Religious people by far are the most intolerant people out there. There are some things that people do or say that I don't agree with but it's cool if they think their own way, it's their life...religious people tend to think that everyone should think their way in terms of relationships, abortion, the whole nine yards. And if you don't, you're simply wrong. I don't like it...and it's not just Christians. It's most of the religious groups that I know...that's why I tend to not follow these people.

"Love thy neighbor...unless he's gay or pro-choice"

Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle.

there are extremists on both sides Zurich so dont be so naive to what the left is doing, they are every bit as intolerant as the extreme right is, so take off the rose colored glass and see the real world.

Birds this man has a VERY good case, he as was stated was not a spokesman for the company and was not a visable comodity, and the last time I checked we do have a little clause in the Constitution called freedom of speach, he did not represent the company in any way shape or form, it was his personal opinion done on his own time on his own PC at home, so in most states to terminate they would need to prove that it effected his work performance. and since he was a manager in the Fraud department he most likley did not investigate the cases and would not have contact with anyone outside the company, so proving his "opinion" was effecting his job performance may not be easy.

perhaps Zurich was talking specifically about the Authoritarian-Right. as in the whole dual axis thing on the political compass.
left<--->right
&
authoritarian<--->libertarian

being 2 seperate axis scales, unrelated to one another. much like X and Y axis.

yes there is also an Authoritarian-Left. but the Liberal-Left doesn't really hate them as they do the Authoritarian-Right. diagonal polar opposites you see .

http://www.garoo.net/photos/2003/05/Pol ... ompass.gif

Fusion pimp wrote:Forced tolerance by intolerance. Brilliant!

X2

You too Cuda.

The sad thing is, it's only going to get much worse and deamed OK in the name of fairness.

should an employer be able to hire and fire whomever they chose? For whatever reason?

In contrast to other threads, its surprising that not one conservative here has stood up for the company, just as it being their right to fire whoever they want: and against government intervention. I am not saying I object, but welcome to socialism.

<3

i do not think the company should have fired him.

However, they had every right to fire him once the third party made it public that he worked for Allstate. the firing is not wrongful, not because of what message his message is, but because his message is descrimatory against a portion of the client base.

It does not matter that he had no intention of his opinion reflecting on the company. The cat is out of the bag. The fact is that some group took issue with the company regarding his opinion and the company has a right to protect its earnings and its image. it is an occupational hazard of the service industry.

his real law suit should be against the third party who "outted" him as working for the company. the company didn't ask him to write the article.

it takes no consideration of the content of his message WHATSOEVER to arrive at the conclusion that he f'ed himself, and the company was just protecting itself.

One last thing, freedom of speech does not mean that your employment is protected under the first ammendment. the company didn't stop him from saying ANYTHING. The company stopped him from working for them once his message, descriminating against their base, became publicly associated with the company.

The funny thing is how hypocritical some of you are. Many of you would likely shiz a tiffany cufflink if this were the other way around and some anti-christian were in a position to affect christian insurance claims, policies, whatever.

now, on to the content...

first and foremost - in America we allow people to have equal rights even if we disagree with the people in question. if you disagree with this, America is probably not for you. Being an American means accepting plurality for the sake of everyone's guaranteed freedom, even if others use their freedom in ways you disapprove of.

his whole argument about it not being natural is utterly ignorant. the only way to even make such an argument is to ignore most of modern biolocial science - not a good tradeoff to prove a mean point. one could also argue that it goes against the bible. none of this matters because in America we're not governed by the bible and we're not governed by ignorant scientific opinions that have no basis in fact. the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is what governs us. the bottom line is people like this guy don't want equality for all and will use any stupid argument to justify descrimination. just wait until he's in the minority - because in short order whitey will be the minority. then suddenly diversity will become his battle cry. he is killing America.

the galling part of this guy's whole position is the way he scoffs at the diversity training he received. it's as if he is claiming there is a gay conspiracy to make the obviously wrong homosexuality OK to the public. what a twisted viewpoint. there wouldn't be diversity training if it weren't for bigots like this guy. there wouldn't be gay advocacy if there wasn't such widespread discrimination.

Every single argument this guy makes is wrong and a first year student of logic could show it. don't believe me and i'll be happy to show u.

I know quite a few who have changed insurance carriers because of this.

State Farm is better, anyway.

The funny thing is how hypocritical some of you are. Many of you would likely shiz a tiffany cufflink if this were the other way around and some anti-christian were in a position to affect christian insurance claims, policies, whatever.

I'll take the bait- Kind of like they "shiz a tiffany cufflink" and You're "shiz(ing) a Tiffany cufflink"?

Actually, I would stand up for the non-Christian who expressed his views outside of his job and was fired.
Potential doesn't cut it, Palz..Did he make his management decisions toward Allstate's client base based on his disapproval for homosexuality? The article doesn't even imply that he did. I would venture to say that it would have been less dramatic and a better business decision to keep it on the low-down. I think Allstate just shot themselves in the foot business-wise striving for political correctness. If people keep ignoring the majority and catering strictly to the minority, the minority is all they're going to have.

I'll keep giving State Farm my money.

Gooberman wrote:should an employer be able to hire and fire whomever they chose? For whatever reason?

It depends on the state. A person can be fired for no cause in Florida and Georgia. Probably other states too.

Dedman wrote:It depends on the state. A person can be fired for no cause in Florida and Georgia. Probably other states too.

Texas is also a Work-For-Hire state. I think most are.

I grew up in California. I haven't lived there for 14 years, so things might have changed. When I was there, it was very hard to fire some one. They had to really screw up and you had to have everything documented.

Fusion pimp wrote:I'll keep giving State Farm my money.

Monetary absence is the greatest form of protest. Iâ??ve made coffee shops in my 2 block square area mold to my demands.

Happy 4th of July!

TheCope wrote:Monetary absence is the greatest form of protest. Iâ??ve made coffee shops in my 2 block square area mold to my demands.

What, now they all serve caulk?

long flat cault!

In contrast to other threads, its surprising that not one conservative here has stood up for the company, just as it being their right to fire whoever they want: and against government intervention.

Goob, you forget that I'm the real conservative on the board when it comes to fiscal matters. Republicans are not fiscally conservative (haven't been for 25 years) so that old adage is not applicable.

I think companies should have the right to fire anyone for any reason except things like gender or race. I personall would NOT want to hire someone who published anti-gay articles working with my clients who could potentially be gay. Not good for business, plain and simple.

I am not saying I object, but welcome to socialism.

In what way is this socialism? Socialism refers to economic system in which the workers own the means of production (such as a factory). I know however that this word's usage has changed a great deal since it was originally used, but I am still confused

Goob, you forget that I'm the real conservative on the board when it comes to fiscal matters.

ok? No where in my post did I say 'fiscal' conservative. You seemed to neglect the "in contrast to other threads" opener. Being against government intervention in private affairs is definitely a conservative view point, one that many here have promoted. Also, alot (most?) of the DBB conservatives are not registered Republican. You can't use the words interchangeably here, or imply that one is refering to the other.

In what way is this socialism?

Socialism advocates state ownership and control over industry. If you advocate that the state should be able to determine who you can and can't fire, (and likewise who you can and can't hire: i.e. AA), then you are advocating that the state should have control over the company/industry.

(Think of the contrapositive: If the state had no control, then they could not tell you who you can/can't fire.)

Before we start arguing semantics: I didn't intend to imply that such a position brings us 100% to a socialist society, only that it is a step in the socialist direction. Which it is. There is very little that I view, or will argue, as binary.

I see this as part of a bigger problem. Over the past decades the concept of a "career" has been eroded into little more than a series of "jobs". Not nearly as many people take the same level of pride in and devotion to the company they work for as they would in years past. The last strongholds of corporate fraternity are the engineering arms of IBM, Xerox, etcetera (and my friends/relatives who work in those places inform me that such feelings of comraderie is disappearing fast). On the other hand, companies have Mission Statements, Corporate Philosophies, and whatever else they like to call their governing principles, and they expect employees to adhere to these standards. Indeed, these standards are part of the binding contract of employment.

So we're stuck in a transition between companies seeing employees as members of a family and seeing them as 9-5 work units. Is it the responsibility of the employer to ensure that the people who constitute the corporate community are good candidates for upholding a culture consistent with the values that govern the company? Or is it none of one's employer's business what an employee does on his or her free time, even if such activity sheds light on the true identity of that employee?

Thirty years ago, nobody would have any problem with Allstate firing an employee who, on his own time, attended Klan meetings. Today, I'm not so sure that decision would be met with such unanimous praise. It's just that it's not yet as offensive to hate gays as it is to hate blacks. (Yes I realize that opposing same-sex marriage and hating gays are not nearly the same thing... I don't hate gays but I am in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage. I'm just drawing a parallel between the two incidents.)

Thanks for clarifying your points goob

This sort of thing is all too frighteningly real to me. I have an interest in controversial topics and a love for truth, but I'm not naive. There are so many topics, in so many places, not where it is merely improper to speak my mind, but where I am afraid to.

I'm interested in origins--you know, evolution, creation, intelligent design. I see it as one of the most essential issues of our time. I want to know the truth and teach it, because I think that will heal people... but that's not a safe path. In the church or in academia, I'd easily be shunned or kicked out if following my nose led me to the wrong place. I worry that following my dreams here could destroy my or my husband's career.

I'm interested in the truth of the Bible, the truth of God's grace. God's redemption leaves such an essential and fundamental mark on your character. There are a lot of people out there who think a lot of pretty outrageous stuff, not because they're evil, just because they don't know... and I want to help. Yet I've experienced some of the most intense hatred from people on this topic--sometimes for little more than the trivial assertion that I actually believe what I believe is true. It isn't really so irrational given what they believe sometimes, but it can take my breath away. I'm bold on the 'net, but in real life I habitually don't say much about what I believe; I guess the outrage has trained me to pick my battles.

I care about politics--I think understanding the times is about more than just being a good citizen; it's about writing history. I long for good, intense, truth-seeking discussion about what our country should be, what's truest to its values, what makes the most pragmatic sense about how to run it. But political debate isn't quite like that. On the contrary, I remember sitting with a group of friends on election night and one asking, "So, who are you all voting for?" and us all looking at the ground. Better a polite brush-off than an honest answer, in that crowd; Tom and I later suffered a couple months of hostility and uncomfortable silence from them over--essentially--a political disagreement. That's the least of it around here. There's the guy at church whose van had paint thrown on it to cover his political bumper stickers; there's the very real danger of losing your job or being unable to advance because your boss doesn't like your political views.

I care about sexual morals--and more broadly, I care about marriage. I think the fight going on for the soul of marriage, the nature of family, and the ethics of sex, is at the very foundation of our culture. I think the repercussions are long and deep, and I think there are a lot of people out there giving very confused advise, and setting a lot of people and their children up for a lot of pain, suffering, and failure. I think homosexuality is wrong--not just spiritually, but morally so--and that's part of a broader, cohesive view of mine, one built on experience and philosophy and a lot of truth-seeking and soul-searching. Where is it safe to say so? If I try to make the case for my view in a book or on a blog--or even on this BB, have I put my job in danger? Have I done so--not even arguing, but just stating it, with this post?

Considerations like these are in the back of my mind a lot. They don't slow me down much--I'd rather be hurt fighting for truth than safe and quiet--but they sure do make me pick my battles carefully. Of course, free speech is never safe--that's just a delusion. Anywhere difficult truth is spoken, it's going to be unpopular, and people who don't want to hear it are going to find ways to hurt you. That's just human nature, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It only makes men worse cowards when the battles don't come with real pain.

Still, I wish we lived in a more tolerent culture. For all that people trumpet tolerence, there really is very little of it. President Bush remains one of my personal heroes--I think he's a man of extraordinary character and vision. I'm well aware that there are people who think he's Hitler reincarnated, and that I'm a Nazi for supporting him. I can understand, love, and happily work with those people--I just wish they had an easier time doing the same to me. I believe that God is real, and that his grace is the only thing of ultimate value in life. I'm well aware that there are people who think that the church is corrupt and evil, even actively destroying society, and who think that I'm an idiotic backwards neanderthal for believing such things. I can easily understand, befriend, love, and work with people like that. That's tolerence. I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. I understand that there are people who think I'm nothing short of the antichrist himself for thinking that. That's okay with me.

I know that I'm the devil to a lot of people--that is, that my beliefs make the the arch-villian in a lot of worldviews. And I know asking people to be polite to the devil is asking an awful lot. Still, I wish--I long for--a culture that understood and practiced tolerence: one that said, "I may think you're the devil himself, and you may be dedicated to fighting everything I stand for... but we can fight our battles with full fury on the debate floor and still be good neighbors." That's tolerence, and there is precious little of it to be had these days.

The world can be so Orwellian these days. I can't write "he", I've got to write "he or she", even though I think it's completely irrational to impugn bigotry by grammatical convention. It doesn't matter; my audience demands that I do obesience to their belief and they will be offended if I don't (never mind their sensitivity to my belief). That's intolerence, and in protest, I still write "he" a lot. It's a matter of principle. But I sometimes I bend, too; it isn't my place to fight sometimes, and sometimes--when I'm fighting another battle--I write for cultural sensetivity, not for principle.

This isn't Allstate. It's the larger culture. This particular case may be shaky, but in this day and age you can't act as though your personal beliefs have no bearing on your company's image. They absolutely do. The same people that I fear would punish me for what I write here would gladly punish my employer for it--or if I got too uppity, would gladly pressure them to fire me. (That sort of thing has happened, and recently. In fact, some in this thread have said they wouldn't hire me given what I believe.)

That's the true enemy of free expression these days--that culturally ingrained intolerence. Such intolerence is itself an idea, and one that free speech protects--I'd be the first to loudly protest fighting it through legal means. Freedom of expression where the government can't hurt you for what you say comes through laws. But freedom of expression where your fellow man won't hurt you for what you say can only come through cultural value. If such deep intolerence is to be defeated, it can't be through suit; it has to be through rebuke. I fear we haven't got the backbone for it, though: I think there are a lot of people who would rather toe the line and say politically correct things than stand for free expression. And there are a lot of people who would rather win than stand for a free society.

We live in interesting times.

â?¦.but in this day and age you can't act as though your personal beliefs have no bearing on your company's image

That was interesting. I agree with you that the cause of this problem is mostly due to basic human nature. And I also strongly agree with, that in the long run, (I couldn't paraphrase it):

"If such deep intolerence is to be defeated, it can't be through suit; it has to be through rebuke"

However...

The only thing I believe to be different with "this day", is that Christians no longer have the immunity in America to this problem that they once did.

That they are only now starting to also be susceptible to the adverse effects of this human nature.

I consider this to be a very old American problem, only with new victims.

greatly written draconia. i hope this part will stick with me:

"And there are a lot of people who would rather win than stand for a free society."

"we all have to make sure we don't turn into the same monster we claim to be fighting against". i recently said that sentance to an abusive homosexual activist who seemed to have gotten to the point in his life where he hated me because he assumed i was heterosexual. nothing i could say to him got through. in the end all i could do was leave him with the cutting message that "he had turned into the exact same monster he says he is fighting against", and hope he thinks about those words.

my personal "how to fix it" idea on this, is that we all have to be discussing, debating, talking, and listening MORE MORE MORE. i think public debate in society needs to be kicked up to proper healthy natural levels. i say "healthy" because without communication society gets polarised - likeminded groups flock together to the excludement of others, the isolation and lack of communication making all partys suspicious of one another. and then the misinterpretations come. little wars start up.

when reading your post i was reminded of some psychology articles i read that dealt with the issues that corporations have when only certain psychological types are in a business - it is too unbalanced and it becomes bad for the business's health. certain types seem more prone to climbing the corporate ladder, and those types' polar opposite types are often even "scapegoated" (in the social psychological sense of the word).

the 4 part article is: Toward A Diversity of Psychological Type in Organization.

people who are familure with the anime movie "Ghost in the Shell" may be familure with the concept: an organisation that overspecialises breeds-in weakness.

Fusion pimp wrote: Potential doesn't cut it, Palz..Did he make his management decisions toward Allstate's client base based on his disapproval for homosexuality? The article doesn't even imply that he did.

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

Fusion pimp wrote:I would venture to say that it would have been less dramatic and a better business decision to keep it on the low-down.

I would not disagree with this at all.

However, the article did imply that the company was already in danger of being sued, audited, etc. once this went public and an advocacy group took them to task. So they fire the guy. Now they lose business from people who blame them for firing him. The company was put in a no-win situation.

Drakona wrote:I think homosexuality is wrong--not just spiritually, but morally so--and that's part of a broader, cohesive view of mine, one built on experience and philosophy and a lot of truth-seeking and soul-searching. Where is it safe to say so?

I would defend your right to say it anywhere.

However, even if you believe it is morally and spiritually wrong, that does not mean it should be illegal, or that those who practice homosexuality should be discriminated against. Just because you think its wrong, that doesn't mean that gay advocacy is political correctness.

Unless homosexuality is harmful then its nobody's business but the people involved.

Last I checked, homosexuality isn't causing innocents to be killed or physically harmed. Homosexuality isn't causing anyone loss of property. Homosexuality isn't going to make a straight person gay.

The only way to say that homosexuality is harmful is to SPECULATE that it will cause a harm that is totally absracted from reality. The real observable, material DAMAGE is to all Americans from discriminating against a minority - because then no minority is safe.

If gays were the majority, would you want them deciding who you could love or not? marry or not?

There has been articles about children of homosexual/lesbian couples where they were discriminated against just for the fact that theyre parents were of a different sexual orientation,And i would venture as far to say that those individuals would not think it's "healthy" or alright by them.

I do agree on the fact that if it's a private matter, the government really shouldnt have it's hand in the matter of business or anything, and if the company hired the said individual to do a job then they completely have a right to fire someone who they feel isnt doing that job or if they feel he/she isnt competent to do that job anymore.

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?