Skip to comments.
Victory For Religious Employee Fired By AT&T (Refused to sign pro-homosexual handbook)
The Rutherford Institute ^
Posted on 04/06/2004 10:30:01 PM PDT by Cedar
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
All workers in this country need to realize that they do not have to agree with nor sign the company policies forcing them to "recognize, respect and value" homosexuality.
Stand your ground!
1
posted on
04/06/2004 10:30:02 PM PDT
by
Cedar
To: All
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
|
To: Cedar
It could have gone the other way, and we could have joined Canada on their strange trip.
To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping + Good, Good News - Rutherford does it again!!!!
Everyone working for companies having these sorts of pro-homosexual materials, rules, and so on should read this article carefully. Ditto if you have relatives or friends is similar situations.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist!
(PS I have a friend who also won a court case (somewhat related circumstances, involving, I believe, freedom of speech issues and homosexuality) with Rutherford defending him.)
4
posted on
04/06/2004 10:39:11 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
To: Cedar
If a company wants to order employees to sign a statement agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese or be fired, it should have the right to do so. It would soon go out of business after all its good employees quit, but the company should have the right to adopt such an ill-conceived policy if so inclined.
5
posted on
04/06/2004 10:59:38 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
To: supercat
There's no way I'd sign something like that either - and not for religious reasons, but because I'm not going to say I "Agree" with ANY bureaucrat's "Policy. However, AFAIK there is no protection for any employee AFA what their company can require them to do, within the bounds of legality, *except* if they're working for the Feddle Gummint (or maybe whatever State Gummint may be involved...).
I'm surprised the guy won this case - my guess would have been that - as you say - AT&T could require him to view homosexual sodomy videos by way of "Sensitivity Training" and there's be nothing he could do about it.
I need to go look & see if there are any AT&T services on my phone bill that I can cancel... I'm just waiting for some AT&T droid to call me up & try to sell me something or ask why I cancelled something, so I can cut them a new clymer...
6
posted on
04/06/2004 11:11:18 PM PDT
by
fire_eye
(Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
To: supercat
If a company wants to order employees to sign a statement agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese or be fired, it should have the right to do so. It would soon go out of business after all its good employees quit, but the company should have the right to adopt such an ill-conceived policy if so inclined.No, it does not have the right to do so. The company has the right to demand that you do your best to get along with your co workers. But it does not have the right to dictate your cultural values.
...after all its good employees quit ? And who told you that opportunists or secularists can't be capable and efficient ?
To: Cedar
The saddest element of this story is not even mentioned:
that ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEE OUT OF THOUSANDS EVEN BOTHERED TO OBJECT.....
We empower these people by our silence. What they do to us is because we allow it.
8
posted on
04/07/2004 5:11:49 AM PDT
by
hford02
((Hold your nose and pull the lever on the right))
To: Sam the Sham
the company should have the right to adopt such an ill-conceived policy if so inclined.My response has been to strike out the offending statement, initial it, and explain to my boss my reason for doing so. Case in point: requiring that I "place the company's interest above all others" in the business conduct policy. The wording was obtuse. I explained I could not and would not place the company's interest above that of my God, my family, or my country. It was accepted with an agreeing head shake and no further comment.
I keep coming to work and they keep paying me.
9
posted on
04/07/2004 5:36:41 AM PDT
by
LTCJ
(Gridlock '05 - the Lesser of Three Evils.)
To: Cedar; little jeremiah
hrmn.
I have mixed opinion of this.
On the one hand, I am glad that the creeping "normalization" of homosexuality was given even so trivial a check as this.
On the other hand, a private individual, group, corporation, or organization should have the power to choose who it will hire and retain, rent to, or otherwise do business with, and on what grounds.
I believe this falls under freedom of asociation (with its corollary: freedom FROM association) under the First Amendment, as well as the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Cases in point:
- The BSA should, by all means, have the right to exclude homosexuals from positions of authority.
- A Christian-based charity organization should have the unchallengeable power to refuse to hire or retain Muslims, pagans, heretics, and flagrant and unrepentant sinners.
- If a nationally dispersed and popular restaraunt chain wishes to hire and retain ONLY cute, busty, extroverted young women as waitresses... get the hint?
- To get utterly ridiculous for a moment, the Aryan Nation - were it ever to found a home-office - should have the unquestioned right to exclude minorities and their sympathizers from its payroll.
This has a variant bearing on this case:
If a company desires to hire and retain only poofs and their sympathizers, I cannot see where the government in any of its forms has any business interfering with this practice, and any suit brought before any court claiming wrongful termination on these grounds should be summarily dismissed.
In the same way, if AT&T wishes to employ ONLY the utterly PC-whipped, so be it.
10
posted on
04/07/2004 6:11:39 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(You may disagree with what I have to say... but I will defend to YOUR death MY right to say it.)
To: supercat
agreed - see #10
11
posted on
04/07/2004 6:13:28 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(You may disagree with what I have to say... but I will defend to YOUR death MY right to say it.)
To: hford02
...ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEE OUT OF THOUSANDS EVEN BOTHERED TO OBJECT...
Bump to that! What's wrong is wrong. If there was more outspoken intolerance we wouldn't be in the cultural mess we're in and I'm not being sarcastic. There's nothing wrong with intolerance. Everyone gets their opinion - except people that disagree with the filth. Time to change that.
12
posted on
04/07/2004 6:19:22 AM PDT
by
AD from SpringBay
(We have the government we allow and deserve.)
To: King Prout
I agree, but perhaps the reason he won the case is because AT&T's personnel policies have something to do with government contracts...just speculating.
13
posted on
04/07/2004 6:30:53 AM PDT
by
Drawsing
(This post is recommended by 4 out of 5 dentists who chew gum.)
To: hford02
This one brave voice though, may give the others the courage and encouragement that they needed.
I applaud this brave leader, but I don't condemn those who don't lead.
14
posted on
04/07/2004 6:34:39 AM PDT
by
MrB
To: King Prout
I share your "mixed opinion," but was very glad to see a Christian being protected by anti-discrimination law. I think it is really a wake up call when your employer assumes the right to dictate how you think, as opposed to how you act or perform your job. I wonder, though, if AT&T is in a special position due to the nature of its work (i.e., subject to more government regulation). Personally, I find the idea of being asked to "value" someone else's lifestyle bizarre. All these special groups claim they are asking only for tolerance...but that is proven more untrue every day. For others to tolerate them is insufficient... we must celebrate them! I see no reason why co-workers need to celebrate each other's sexuality of any orientation. I'd be happy if I could get some decent customer service from AT&T; when my telephone goes out, the extent to which AT&T employees are valuing homosexuality really isn't on my radar screen. I give this guy a lot of credit for taking a stand.
To: Drawsing
According to the Denver Post, "Buonanno sued AT&T Broadband under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects employees from discrimination based on race, sex, religious beliefs, national ancestry or color." Makes sense to me.
To: GraceCoolidge
I give him credit, as well, but I don't think his case should have made it to court, for reasons already stated.
on all your other points: agreed. I am a nazi at work. the only thing a worker is paid to do is WORK. all else is theft.
17
posted on
04/07/2004 6:51:42 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(You may disagree with what I have to say... but I will defend to YOUR death MY right to say it.)
To: King Prout
A couple problems that I see are that many, many companies now do this. I don't know enough to say the majority, or even how many. But it is a common practice.
Second, there are so many governmental regulations - state and as far as I know fed - mandating "non-discrimination" policies which include sexual orientation.
Third, suppose it was company policy to make employees sign statements or policy thingies that forced acceptance of other vices? How about bestiality, or child/adult sex?
18
posted on
04/07/2004 8:05:05 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
To: little jeremiah
I have long believed that EEOC rules are unconstitutional usurpations of the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendment rights of private citizens and corporations.
19
posted on
04/07/2004 8:30:43 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(You may disagree with what I have to say... but I will defend to YOUR death MY right to say it.)
To: King Prout
Tell this admitted layman what the EEOC rules are! {I'm sure I wouldn't like them either..;-)}
20
posted on
04/07/2004 2:04:03 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson