The company feared the promotion of a law would be "intolerent to homosexuals"...well THAT certainly justifies violating a man's First Amendment rights. (scarcasm)
To: High Cotton
Cargill had every right to fire him. They probably just realized that doing so would be a terrible business decision.
2 posted on
10/27/2006 3:51:18 PM PDT by
Alberta's Child
(Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
To: High Cotton
I'm not sure I'd want the job back. Perhaps he has little choice.
3 posted on
10/27/2006 3:51:48 PM PDT by
Jaysun
(Idiot Muslims. They're just dying to have sex orgies.)
To: High Cotton
Sounds like some low level supervisor was being PC and the big guns had to come in and fix it.
6 posted on
10/27/2006 3:58:04 PM PDT by
digger48
To: High Cotton
"reasonably construed as a show of hostility and intolerance toward homosexuals." Is that actionable?
8 posted on
10/27/2006 3:59:09 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
To: High Cotton
Marriage is a "contract" authorized/regulated by law. A "company" exists because it is "incorporated", and a "corporation" is also authorized/regulated by law.
Incoporated companies have a vested interest in the continued existence of marriage, partnership and corporations.
Otherwise the neighborhood gang would have as much right to their assets as they would.
Obviously the company's managers have thought this one out a little bit more, but they really ought to see who it is blocking access to the men's room more often.
12 posted on
10/27/2006 4:03:10 PM PDT by
muawiyah
To: High Cotton
"reasonably construed as a show of hostility and intolerance toward homosexuals."
To: High Cotton
24 posted on
10/27/2006 5:40:50 PM PDT by
lowbridge
(A liberal is a person that will gladly give you the shirt off of someone elses back.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson