> > >> 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.
> > > 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.
> > Big difference. Gays are not a race, it's personal choice and a behavi > or > > issue, cut and dried.
> Religious preference is also a personal choice and yet it is covered > as well. As for sexual orientation being a personal choice, there is > a lot of research which disagrees with you.
Fag research. Gay perverts are in it for pain, suffering and whatever minimal pleasures they get from being abused. That's how it all starts, some gay pedophile molests a child.
> On Nov 14, 7:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Fine. From you're name, I'm going to assume that you're Jewish. So > > > > > consider:
> > > > > You wish four different people in your office a Happy Hannukah. A > > > > > Christian coworker goes out of his way to pull you aside, because he's > > > > > offended by your Jewishness. He advises you that Jews are hebes and > > > > > kikes and will be going to hell because they don't believe that Jesus > > > > > was the savior, and (perhaps) he requests that you not wish anyone > > > > > else a Happy Hannukah.
> > > > That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > > > faggot.
> > > Or a "deviant".
> > Yes. But, not "homosexual behavior is deviant", even when said to a > > gay person. The Jewish analogy below explains why.
> I see. So, "Jews are going to hell", specifically directed at you by > someone who knows that you are a Jew, you wouldn't take personally. I > understand.
Firstly, the analogous statement isn't "Jews are going to hell". It's "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the savior will go to hell." Secondly, of course either of those statements will be taken personally by a Jew. But the latter statement ought not be a first-time firing offense (but is a second-time firing offense) because it is not intended to demean.
> > > > I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > > > someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > > > savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > > > and you are fired.
> > > If that is said generally, not specifically and purposely to a person > > > who a reasonable person would assume would be offended, then depending > > > on the circumstances, a second chance might be warranted.
> > Even if it is said to a Jew, I would not call it a first-time firing > > offense.
> But it is according to the policy of the company in question.
Yes. I'm not arguing that Brookstone deviated from their policy. I'm arguing the policy is misguided.
> > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
> > I wouldn't use the reasonable person standard, but rather the honest > > perspective of the accused.
> Apparently, with respect to this type of policy, and indeed with > respect to harassment laws in general, "intent" is not the deciding > factor. It is not the intent of all those accused of sexual > harassment to, in fact, "harass". The standard is to determine > whether the behavior itself was harassing, not if the person doing the > harassing intended for the behavior to be uncomfortable to the > receiving party.
As I have said now many times, as a first offense firing - I think that standard is misguided.
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:46:25 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth
> >That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > >faggot. I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > >someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > >savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > >and you are fired.
> Josh; By-n-large I would normally agree with you, but this wasn't a > case about wanting to improve relations or even take an opportunity to > create better understanding. It was a case about limiting liability > and following the strict letter of written policies.
> If Brookstone had not terminated Mr Vadala they would have opened > themselves up to lawsuits from not only the "Protected Class", but > from who had ever been dismissed previously under the Zero Tolerance > aspect of it.
Good points. I counter with the following: 1) a stern warning to Vadala and a promise to fire him if he repeats his behavior would likely handle the "protected class" lawsuit, and 2) Brookstone should now change their policy to handle future cases.
On Nov 14, 8:34 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:27:01 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth
> >> It is understood that if you > >> think that homosexuals are deviant, that you believe the homosexual > >> person to whom you're speaking is deviant. Simple logic.
> >The latter statement does not say that homosexuals are deviant. It > >says homosexual behavior is deviant.
> And a homosexual is one who engages in homosexual behavior, so if the > behavior is deviant so is the person committing the behavior.
I suspect in Vadala's mind, shared by many religious people, that the person is sinful when he commits this deviant (meaning immoral, not out-of-the-norm) behavior. Being sinful is far different than being immoral.
> On Nov 14, 8:23 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 7:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Fine. From you're name, I'm going to assume that you're Jewish. So > > > > > > consider:
> > > > > > You wish four different people in your office a Happy Hannukah. A > > > > > > Christian coworker goes out of his way to pull you aside, because he's > > > > > > offended by your Jewishness. He advises you that Jews are hebes and > > > > > > kikes and will be going to hell because they don't believe that Jesus > > > > > > was the savior, and (perhaps) he requests that you not wish anyone > > > > > > else a Happy Hannukah.
> > > > > That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > > > > faggot.
> > > > Or a "deviant".
> > > Yes. But, not "homosexual behavior is deviant", even when said to a > > > gay person. The Jewish analogy below explains why.
> > I see. So, "Jews are going to hell", specifically directed at you by > > someone who knows that you are a Jew, you wouldn't take personally. I > > understand.
> Firstly, the analogous statement isn't "Jews are going to hell". It's > "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the savior will go > to hell."
Well, no... Because the statement (or ONE of the statements) was apparently something akin to "the homosexual lifestyle is immoral/ deviant", and was said to a known homosexual. So in your analogous statement above, you WOULD need specifically to mention the Jews. Because homosexuals were (or homosexuality was) specifically mentioned (even according to Peter Vadala's tape, he specifically mentioned homosexuality). YOUR "analogous" statement above is much more generic, but still, since the person saying it said it to a person who he knew did not accept Jesus Christ as his savior, it's basically the same as telling that person that according to the other person's religious beliefs, he is going to hell.
You've gotten yourself too caught up in literal statements while ignoring the impact of the implications and necessary inferences from those statements.
> Secondly, of course either of those statements will be > taken personally by a Jew. But the latter statement ought not be a > first-time firing offense (but is a second-time firing offense) > because it is not intended to demean.
As I said, the second statement is more generic. You've forgotten the other behavior that would be associated with it, however. The pulling aside to specifically say this to a person who belongs to the group being discredited by personal religious belief. That makes it a personal insult.
> > > > > I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > > > > someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > > > > savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > > > > and you are fired.
> > > > If that is said generally, not specifically and purposely to a person > > > > who a reasonable person would assume would be offended, then depending > > > > on the circumstances, a second chance might be warranted.
> > > Even if it is said to a Jew, I would not call it a first-time firing > > > offense.
> > But it is according to the policy of the company in question.
> Yes. I'm not arguing that Brookstone deviated from their policy. I'm > arguing the policy is misguided.
If you could define "misguided" for us, that might be helpful. (And no, I don't need the dictionary definition.)
> > > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> > You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
> That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates > a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
Ah. Well, have fun with that, as intention isn't always clear, and one would need to be a mind-reader in order to determine it beyond a reasonable doubt. (This is how zero-tolerance policies make things SO much easier and clear-cut.) There might also be a problem with respect to the law. Since intention is NOT generally the defining factor in harassment and discrimination cases, depending on local laws, your company policy might have to be tweaked.
In a case where someone belonging to a certain group is purposely pulled aside and told that the group to which he is a member is "immoral" and "deviant", I guess you'd have to decide if the intent was to "help" (which, in this case, would qualify as imposing upon someone one's religious beliefs, if Vadala actually did mention them), or to insult. I think that the statement after the incident, to the sales associate -- the statement in which Vadala says that he "hates people like that" -- gives us a clearer understanding of what his intent was. A loving Christian wouldn't actually say something like that; it negates his stated intent to be helpful.
> > > I wouldn't use the reasonable person standard, but rather the honest > > > perspective of the accused.
> > Apparently, with respect to this type of policy, and indeed with > > respect to harassment laws in general, "intent" is not the deciding > > factor. It is not the intent of all those accused of sexual > > harassment to, in fact, "harass". The standard is to determine > > whether the behavior itself was harassing, not if the person doing the > > harassing intended for the behavior to be uncomfortable to the > > receiving party.
> As I have said now many times, as a first offense firing - I think > that standard is misguided.
> On Nov 14, 9:02 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:46:25 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth
> > >That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > >faggot. I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > >someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > >savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > >and you are fired.
> > Josh; By-n-large I would normally agree with you, but this wasn't a > > case about wanting to improve relations or even take an opportunity to > > create better understanding. It was a case about limiting liability > > and following the strict letter of written policies.
> > If Brookstone had not terminated Mr Vadala they would have opened > > themselves up to lawsuits from not only the "Protected Class", but > > from who had ever been dismissed previously under the Zero Tolerance > > aspect of it.
> Good points. I counter with the following: 1) a stern warning to > Vadala and a promise to fire him if he repeats his behavior would > likely handle the "protected class" lawsuit, and 2) Brookstone should > now change their policy to handle future cases.
> Josh Rosenbluth
Do you think that a person who slaps a coworker should also not be subject to a zero-tolerance policy? How about someone who insults his boss by telling him to "Fuck off"? How about someone who is caught stealing? How about someone who takes pay-offs from suppliers? How about someone who embezzles?
> On Nov 15, 7:25 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:23 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 7:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Fine. From you're name, I'm going to assume that you're Jewish. So > > > > > > > consider:
> > > > > > > You wish four different people in your office a Happy Hannukah. A > > > > > > > Christian coworker goes out of his way to pull you aside, because he's > > > > > > > offended by your Jewishness. He advises you that Jews are hebes and > > > > > > > kikes and will be going to hell because they don't believe that Jesus > > > > > > > was the savior, and (perhaps) he requests that you not wish anyone > > > > > > > else a Happy Hannukah.
> > > > > > That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > > > > > faggot.
> > > > > Or a "deviant".
> > > > Yes. But, not "homosexual behavior is deviant", even when said to a > > > > gay person. The Jewish analogy below explains why.
> > > I see. So, "Jews are going to hell", specifically directed at you by > > > someone who knows that you are a Jew, you wouldn't take personally. I > > > understand.
> > Firstly, the analogous statement isn't "Jews are going to hell". It's > > "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the savior will go > > to hell."
> Well, no... Because the statement (or ONE of the statements) was > apparently something akin to "the homosexual lifestyle is immoral/ > deviant", and was said to a known homosexual. So in your analogous > statement above, you WOULD need specifically to mention the Jews. > Because homosexuals were (or homosexuality was) specifically mentioned > (even according to Peter Vadala's tape, he specifically mentioned > homosexuality). YOUR "analogous" statement above is much more > generic, but still, since the person saying it said it to a person who > he knew did not accept Jesus Christ as his savior, it's basically the > same as telling that person that according to the other person's > religious beliefs, he is going to hell.
> You've gotten yourself too caught up in literal statements while > ignoring the impact of the implications and necessary inferences from > those statements.
The statement about Jewish belief, depending on the exact circumstances and wording, might not be intended to demean.
> > > > > > I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > > > > > someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > > > > > savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > > > > > and you are fired.
> > > > > If that is said generally, not specifically and purposely to a person > > > > > who a reasonable person would assume would be offended, then depending > > > > > on the circumstances, a second chance might be warranted.
> > > > Even if it is said to a Jew, I would not call it a first-time firing > > > > offense.
> > > But it is according to the policy of the company in question.
> > Yes. I'm not arguing that Brookstone deviated from their policy. I'm > > arguing the policy is misguided.
> If you could define "misguided" for us, that might be helpful. (And > no, I don't need the dictionary definition.)
A person who does not intend to demean, now realizes he did demean, and won't do it again, ought to be able to stay. He's not hateful and can still be an asset to the company.
> > > > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> > > You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > > > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > > > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > > > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
> > That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates > > a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
> Ah. Well, have fun with that, as intention isn't always clear, and > one would need to be a mind-reader in order to determine it beyond a > reasonable doubt. (This is how zero-tolerance policies make things SO > much easier and clear-cut.) There might also be a problem with > respect to the law. Since intention is NOT generally the defining > factor in harassment and discrimination cases, depending on local > laws, your company policy might have to be tweaked.
Easier does not imply proper. Please quote the relevant statutes that indicate my preferred policy runs afoul of the law.
> On Nov 15, 7:31 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 9:02 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:46:25 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth
> > > >That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > > >faggot. I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > > >someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > > >savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > > >and you are fired.
> > > Josh; By-n-large I would normally agree with you, but this wasn't a > > > case about wanting to improve relations or even take an opportunity to > > > create better understanding. It was a case about limiting liability > > > and following the strict letter of written policies.
> > > If Brookstone had not terminated Mr Vadala they would have opened > > > themselves up to lawsuits from not only the "Protected Class", but > > > from who had ever been dismissed previously under the Zero Tolerance > > > aspect of it.
> > Good points. I counter with the following: 1) a stern warning to > > Vadala and a promise to fire him if he repeats his behavior would > > likely handle the "protected class" lawsuit, and 2) Brookstone should > > now change their policy to handle future cases.
> Do you think that a person who slaps a coworker should also not be > subject to a zero-tolerance policy? How about someone who insults his > boss by telling him to "Fuck off"? How about someone who is caught > stealing? How about someone who takes pay-offs from suppliers? How > about someone who embezzles?
Josh Rosenbluth wrote: > On Nov 15, 2:13 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 7:25 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 8:23 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 14, 7:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Fine. From you're name, I'm going to assume that you're Jewish. So > > > > > > > > consider:
> > > > > > > > You wish four different people in your office a Happy Hannukah. A > > > > > > > > Christian coworker goes out of his way to pull you aside, because he's > > > > > > > > offended by your Jewishness. He advises you that Jews are hebes and > > > > > > > > kikes and will be going to hell because they don't believe that Jesus > > > > > > > > was the savior, and (perhaps) he requests that you not wish anyone > > > > > > > > else a Happy Hannukah.
> > > > > > > That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > > > > > > faggot.
> > > > > > Or a "deviant".
> > > > > Yes. But, not "homosexual behavior is deviant", even when said to a > > > > > gay person. The Jewish analogy below explains why.
> > > > I see. So, "Jews are going to hell", specifically directed at you by > > > > someone who knows that you are a Jew, you wouldn't take personally. I > > > > understand.
> > > Firstly, the analogous statement isn't "Jews are going to hell". It's > > > "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the savior will go > > > to hell."
> > Well, no... Because the statement (or ONE of the statements) was > > apparently something akin to "the homosexual lifestyle is immoral/ > > deviant", and was said to a known homosexual. So in your analogous > > statement above, you WOULD need specifically to mention the Jews. > > Because homosexuals were (or homosexuality was) specifically mentioned > > (even according to Peter Vadala's tape, he specifically mentioned > > homosexuality). YOUR "analogous" statement above is much more > > generic, but still, since the person saying it said it to a person who > > he knew did not accept Jesus Christ as his savior, it's basically the > > same as telling that person that according to the other person's > > religious beliefs, he is going to hell.
> > You've gotten yourself too caught up in literal statements while > > ignoring the impact of the implications and necessary inferences from > > those statements.
> The statement about Jewish belief, depending on the exact > circumstances and wording, might not be intended to demean.
Agreed. However, if you had just told the guy that you're Jewish, and he pulls you aside to give you his religious opinion, he's imposing upon you his religious beliefs. So with respect to imposing upon you his religious beliefs, there is no need to determine his intention or lack thereof to demean. His opinion was unsolicited, inappropriate in the circumstance, and I think that most Jewish people would take offense, because the act of pulling one aside makes it all the more personal. I don't see how any rational person could think that this statement made in these circumstances is not offensive.
Again, it wasn't just a statement, but there are other dimensions that must be considered as well, in this case if we assume it's analogous to the issue at hand:
* The comment was made in the workplace.
* The comment was one of religious or other personal opinion rather than fact.
* The offended was specifically for the purpose of being told about the condescending religious or personal opinion.
* The offender had, within the past two weeks, attended a training seminar in which it was stated that this type of behavior would not be tolerated.
> > > > > > > I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > > > > > > someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > > > > > > savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > > > > > > and you are fired.
> > > > > > If that is said generally, not specifically and purposely to a person > > > > > > who a reasonable person would assume would be offended, then depending > > > > > > on the circumstances, a second chance might be warranted.
> > > > > Even if it is said to a Jew, I would not call it a first-time firing > > > > > offense.
> > > > But it is according to the policy of the company in question.
> > > Yes. I'm not arguing that Brookstone deviated from their policy. I'm > > > arguing the policy is misguided.
> > If you could define "misguided" for us, that might be helpful. (And > > no, I don't need the dictionary definition.)
> A person who does not intend to demean, now realizes he did demean, > and won't do it again, ought to be able to stay. He's not hateful
> > > > > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> > > > You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > > > > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > > > > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > > > > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
> > > That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates > > > a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
> > Ah. Well, have fun with that, as intention isn't always clear, and > > one would need to be a mind-reader in order to determine it beyond a > > reasonable doubt. (This is how zero-tolerance policies make things SO > > much easier and clear-cut.) There might also be a problem with > > respect to the law. Since intention is NOT generally the defining > > factor in harassment and discrimination cases, depending on local > > laws, your company policy might have to be tweaked.
> Easier does not imply proper. Please quote the relevant statutes that > indicate my preferred policy runs afoul of the law.
I didn't state that your policy WOULD violate the law, but rather stated that you'd have to make sure that it complied with the law. Since Massachusetts added sexual orientation to its anti- discrimination laws in 1989, we'd probably get a better idea as to how this is enforced by looking at case law.
I believe I've cited the Massachusetts code earlier in this thread.
> On Nov 15, 2:18 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 7:31 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 14, 9:02 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:46:25 -0800 (PST), Josh Rosenbluth
> > > > >That "hebes" and "kikes" slur is analogous to calling someone a > > > > >faggot. I agree that is an immediate firing offense. However, if > > > > >someone said "I believe that people who don't accept Christ as the > > > > >savior will go to hell", that ought to get you a warning - second time > > > > >and you are fired.
> > > > Josh; By-n-large I would normally agree with you, but this wasn't a > > > > case about wanting to improve relations or even take an opportunity to > > > > create better understanding. It was a case about limiting liability > > > > and following the strict letter of written policies.
> > > > If Brookstone had not terminated Mr Vadala they would have opened > > > > themselves up to lawsuits from not only the "Protected Class", but > > > > from who had ever been dismissed previously under the Zero Tolerance > > > > aspect of it.
> > > Good points. I counter with the following: 1) a stern warning to > > > Vadala and a promise to fire him if he repeats his behavior would > > > likely handle the "protected class" lawsuit, and 2) Brookstone should > > > now change their policy to handle future cases.
> > Do you think that a person who slaps a coworker should also not be > > subject to a zero-tolerance policy? How about someone who insults his > > boss by telling him to "Fuck off"? How about someone who is caught > > stealing? How about someone who takes pay-offs from suppliers? How > > about someone who embezzles?
> Zero tolerance in all your above cases.
> Josh Rosenbluth
So then you're actually not against zero-tolerance policies.
On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > The statement about Jewish belief, depending on the exact > > circumstances and wording, might not be intended to demean.
> Agreed. However, if you had just told the guy that you're Jewish, and > he pulls you aside to give you his religious opinion, he's imposing > upon you his religious beliefs. So with respect to imposing upon you > his religious beliefs, there is no need to determine his intention or > lack thereof to demean.
I disagree - and it's my company to set policy for. If he didn't intent to demean, he gets a second chance.
> > A person who does not intend to demean, now realizes he did demean, > > and won't do it again, ought to be able to stay. He's not hateful
> "I hate people like that." That's not hateful?
If that's part of the record, then he might be gone on the first offense. And if he didn't, then he might not be gone. The facts make a difference - but I do not support a blanket zero-tolerance harassment policy based on intent to demean.
> > > > > > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> > > > > You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > > > > > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > > > > > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > > > > > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
> > > > That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates > > > > a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
> > > Ah. Well, have fun with that, as intention isn't always clear, and > > > one would need to be a mind-reader in order to determine it beyond a > > > reasonable doubt. (This is how zero-tolerance policies make things SO > > > much easier and clear-cut.) There might also be a problem with > > > respect to the law. Since intention is NOT generally the defining > > > factor in harassment and discrimination cases, depending on local > > > laws, your company policy might have to be tweaked.
> > Easier does not imply proper. Please quote the relevant statutes that > > indicate my preferred policy runs afoul of the law.
> I didn't state that your policy WOULD violate the law, but rather > stated that you'd have to make sure that it complied with the law.
No, shit Sherlock. Do you have any evidence that my policy would be more problematic with regaard to the law than Brookstone's?
{and copying from the other post}
> > > Do you think that a person who slaps a coworker should also not be > > > subject to a zero-tolerance policy? How about someone who insults his > > > boss by telling him to "Fuck off"? How about someone who is caught > > > stealing? How about someone who takes pay-offs from suppliers? How > > > about someone who embezzles? > > Zero tolerance in all your above cases. > So then you're actually not against zero-tolerance policies.
I'm not against *all* zero-tolerance policies. But, I am against the harassment zero-tolerance policy as explained over and over and over again. What about my opinion do you not understand?
> On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > The statement about Jewish belief, depending on the exact > > > circumstances and wording, might not be intended to demean.
> > Agreed. However, if you had just told the guy that you're Jewish, and > > he pulls you aside to give you his religious opinion, he's imposing > > upon you his religious beliefs. So with respect to imposing upon you > > his religious beliefs, there is no need to determine his intention or > > lack thereof to demean.
> I disagree - and it's my company to set policy for. If he didn't > intent to demean, he gets a second chance.
> > > A person who does not intend to demean, now realizes he did demean, > > > and won't do it again, ought to be able to stay. He's not hateful
> > "I hate people like that." That's not hateful?
> If that's part of the record,
It is.
> then he might be gone on the first > offense.
He was.
> And if he didn't, then he might not be gone. The facts make > a difference - but I do not support a blanket zero-tolerance > harassment policy based on intent to demean.
And, given the facts -- including the statement "I hate people like that", which was uttered around the same time -- you really believe it was not his intent to demean?
> > > > > > > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> > > > > > You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > > > > > > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > > > > > > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > > > > > > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
> > > > > That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates > > > > > a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
> > > > Ah. Well, have fun with that, as intention isn't always clear, and > > > > one would need to be a mind-reader in order to determine it beyond a > > > > reasonable doubt. (This is how zero-tolerance policies make things SO > > > > much easier and clear-cut.) There might also be a problem with > > > > respect to the law. Since intention is NOT generally the defining > > > > factor in harassment and discrimination cases, depending on local > > > > laws, your company policy might have to be tweaked.
> > > Easier does not imply proper. Please quote the relevant statutes that > > > indicate my preferred policy runs afoul of the law.
> > I didn't state that your policy WOULD violate the law, but rather > > stated that you'd have to make sure that it complied with the law.
> No, shit Sherlock. Do you have any evidence that my policy would be > more problematic with regaard to the law than Brookstone's?
Not sure. I don't know the case law.
> {and copying from the other post}
> > > > Do you think that a person who slaps a coworker should also not be > > > > subject to a zero-tolerance policy? How about someone who insults his > > > > boss by telling him to "Fuck off"? How about someone who is caught > > > > stealing? How about someone who takes pay-offs from suppliers? How > > > > about someone who embezzles? > > > Zero tolerance in all your above cases. > > So then you're actually not against zero-tolerance policies.
> I'm not against *all* zero-tolerance policies. But, I am against the > harassment zero-tolerance policy as explained over and over and over > again. What about my opinion do you not understand?
> On Nov 15, 5:25 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > > The statement about Jewish belief, depending on the exact > > > > circumstances and wording, might not be intended to demean.
> > > Agreed. However, if you had just told the guy that you're Jewish, and > > > he pulls you aside to give you his religious opinion, he's imposing > > > upon you his religious beliefs. So with respect to imposing upon you > > > his religious beliefs, there is no need to determine his intention or > > > lack thereof to demean.
> > I disagree - and it's my company to set policy for. If he didn't > > intent to demean, he gets a second chance.
> > > > A person who does not intend to demean, now realizes he did demean, > > > > and won't do it again, ought to be able to stay. He's not hateful
> > > "I hate people like that." That's not hateful?
> > If that's part of the record,
> It is.
> > then he might be gone on the first > > offense.
> He was.
> > And if he didn't, then he might not be gone. The facts make > > a difference - but I do not support a blanket zero-tolerance > > harassment policy based on intent to demean.
> And, given the facts -- including the statement "I hate people like > that", which was uttered around the same time -- you really believe > it was not his intent to demean?
I don't know. It would require a full finding of facts.
> > > > > > > > My standard for first time offense is intention to demean.
> > > > > > > You did not write the policy for the company in question. When you > > > > > > > have your own company, you can write your policies as you see fit. > > > > > > > Here's an example: "You can insult a coworker only once, after which > > > > > > > we will probably fire you. Once is acceptable to this company."
> > > > > > That, of course, would not be my policy. Intention is what separates > > > > > > a first-offense firing from a second chance in my policy.
> > > > > Ah. Well, have fun with that, as intention isn't always clear, and > > > > > one would need to be a mind-reader in order to determine it beyond a > > > > > reasonable doubt. (This is how zero-tolerance policies make things SO > > > > > much easier and clear-cut.) There might also be a problem with > > > > > respect to the law. Since intention is NOT generally the defining > > > > > factor in harassment and discrimination cases, depending on local > > > > > laws, your company policy might have to be tweaked.
> > > > Easier does not imply proper. Please quote the relevant statutes that > > > > indicate my preferred policy runs afoul of the law.
> > > I didn't state that your policy WOULD violate the law, but rather > > > stated that you'd have to make sure that it complied with the law.
> > No, shit Sherlock. Do you have any evidence that my policy would be > > more problematic with regaard to the law than Brookstone's?
> Not sure. I don't know the case law.
> > {and copying from the other post}
> > > > > Do you think that a person who slaps a coworker should also not be > > > > > subject to a zero-tolerance policy? How about someone who insults his > > > > > boss by telling him to "Fuck off"? How about someone who is caught > > > > > stealing? How about someone who takes pay-offs from suppliers? How > > > > > about someone who embezzles? > > > > Zero tolerance in all your above cases. > > > So then you're actually not against zero-tolerance policies.
> > I'm not against *all* zero-tolerance policies. But, I am against the > > harassment zero-tolerance policy as explained over and over and over > > again. What about my opinion do you not understand?
Seriously, you needed that tinfoil helmet website but you'd better make yours out of high purity industrial grade material because your power supply is so weak and the Moronatron force is just so strong.... your brain may melt... uh oh...
Wait... your signal is fading out... losing recepti...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:47:25 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> <patmagro...@null.net> wrote: > >On Nov 14, 8:21 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:09:54 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy
> >> >Actually, I'm not sure it actually HAS to be the "intention" to > >> >demean... The feeling of being demeaned or degraded comes from the > >> >person who felt that. I don't think it's a stretch that if one is > >> >called "immoral", "deviant", "bad", or anything else personally > >> >insulting like that, that they would feel demeaned. He made insulting > >> >negative comments about her person, her lifestyle, without being asked > >> >for his opinions, knowing full well the possible ramifications (which, > >> >I think, is why he took her out of earshot of the other employees -- > >> >if he really thought what he was doing was right, why not just bring > >> >it up in front of everyone?).
> >> There has been a lot of thought, writings and discussion on this > >> particular topic. If I called you a stupid ignorant SOB, and you are > >> none of these things, how could you actually be insulted?
> >Venue and relationship are important. In THIS venue, it simply > >doesn't matter. It's just name-calling.
> Well that is true enough, it doesn't.
> >In the workplace, if you pulled me aside and I thought you meant it, > >it's inappropriate. It's still just name-calling, though. You're not > >addressing a moral issue by calling me a "stupid ignorant SOB".
> Am I not disparaging then legitimacy of your birth?
> >> By many > >> religious peoples standards, I'm both immoral & deviant,
> >Everyone is, in one way or another. Had Peter Vadala realized that, > >perhaps he'd have been able to ignore the word of God to go and call > >his coworker "immoral" and "deviant".
> Ya know I'm sort of pissed that God never talks to me. Either he's > pissed, or the Med's really do work. All kidding aside I really do > worry about people who claim to hear a Supreme Beings words.
> >> yet by my own > >> I'm simply having a good time. So becomes an issue of the "Sticks & > >> Stones" rhyme.
> >> Perhaps he took her out of ear shoot in order to save her some level > >> of public humiliation, who knows. It is wrong to speculate like that, > >> you weren't there.
> >> >> Many religious > >> >> people honestly believe they love the person while hating the > >> >> behavior.
> >> >Doesn't matter. The "advice" was unsolicited, demeaning, uncalled > >> >for, inappropriate in the circumstances, unprofessional, and Vadala > >> >admits that he was aware of company policy, as he'd attended a > >> >training seminar dealing specifically with this issue.
> >> It was definitely uncalled for, inappropriate and unprofessional,
> >Apparently, according to policy, this is enough.
> >> but > >> only the woman knows for sure if it was demeaning.
> >And that's part of it. It is the recipient of the remark whose > >opinions matter. I, certainly, would be SHOCKED to have someone pull > >me aside to tell me such a thing. And if I were in a position of > >authority over that person, I'd can his ass on the spot.
> One of the points that I've been trying to make is that Valada "could" > have felt demeaned, shocked, disgusted with having to deal with the > concept of Homosexuality based discussions in the workplace.
Well, I hear that. I've been trying to think of times when I've really felt anything like that in the workplace. I will tell you that a couple of my underlings at jobs past felt a need to talk to me about their abortions. I can tell you that it was extremely uncomfortable for me.
But I can also tell you that I didn't pull them aside to tell them that they're immoral murderers.
> However, > even if it was that, then he handled it badly.
Here's the thing, Zomby. My fascination with this has to do with Vadala more than anything else. People his age are overwhelmingly not only not homophobic, but are in favor of same-sex marriage, seeing nothing wrong with it.
It appears that his father, Peter Sr., donated money to the Obama campaign. This would suggest (just *suggest*) that he's a social liberal. The children of social liberals tend to be liberal themselves. So this Peter Vadala, given his age and what appears to be his familial background, being all conservative, being all churchy, and believing that God instructed him to tell this woman that she (or her lifestyle) is immoral just fascinates me. Really. It fascinates me. It's very kooky, and I find that interesting.
> He could have just as > easily asked the woman in question to quit making Homosexual > references as they were making him uneasy in the workplace and perhaps > impacting his work performance.
Yeah. She didn't really make homosexual references, though. And the issue here really is one of fairness. Peter doesn't mind straight people talking about their affianced partners, but objects when gay people do.
> If he had made it about himself as > opposed to her he would have been on much safer grounds, but still a > tad on the shaky side of the street due to the Protected Class status > of the woman involved.
It wouldn't be fair to try to censor a gay person and not a straight person in a similar circumstance.
>> If she is so > >> secure in her sexuality that she feels comfortable enough to bring it > >> up at work in front of strangers, I'd think she wasn't demeaned.
> >She was called "immoral" and "deviant". Those are two of the most > >demeaning words in the English language in a mostly Christian > >country. Perhaps this woman is also Christian, but if not, she likely > >was brought up Christian, or at least got socialized in a mostly > >Christian society.
> She could have just as easily been socialized in a mostly Gay > Community,
Not likely in her younger years.
> or at least get all of her current socialization there.
That's likely. I'm not sure that the kids these days, though, considering a more open society, need to seek out gay places like we did in the early 1980s. Surely she's comfortable with her sexuality, and believe it or not, those who sequester themselves in gay-related communities aren't necessarily all that comfortable outside of them.
> While I am quite sure that there are "Gay" Christians they probably > also have an interesting conundrum resolving to conflicting aspects of > themselves.
The Catholics have a particular problem. But "Christian" is a very broad term, and even straight people who claim to be Christian don't necessarily believe the Bible verbatim, they "sin" as much as anyone else, and in the end, I guess there's a belief that if you're a basically good person, you'll go to heaven.
> >> Especially when the conversation didn't happen in front of others. > >> >A witness (not to the incident, but someone who talked to Vadala that > >> >day) put in writing that Vadala had said that he "hate[s] people like > >> >that". So much for loving the person, eh?
> >> >> But if it was intended to demean, is Brookstone's policy > >> >> broad enough to cover any insult, not just those because of sexuality, > >> >> etc?
> >> >Yes. See page 2 of the termination letter. Not only "protected > >> >classes" are protected. "Discrimination can be defined as treating an > >> >individual differently based on factors such as those listed above > >> >[which includes people who aren't members of protected classes -- see > >> >letter]. Harassment is [a behavior] degrading to either gender, or to > >> >racial, ethnic or religious groups or BEHAVIOR THAT IS PERSONALLY > >> >OFFENSIVE TO THE RECIPIENT [emphasis mine], impairs morale or > >> >interferes with the work effectiveness of Associates."
> >> However, using the above worded phrase I could make a case that > >> nattering on all day about one's personal life impairs my morale and > >> interferes with everyone's work effectiveness.
> >And, indeed, I'd say that a person found guilty of "nattering on all > >day" might be disciplined. (I hope you're not suggesting that simply > >mentioning a fiancee four times during the course of a day is > >"nattering on all day".)
> Actually it would be five, the initial comment to Mr. Valada, plus > four more.
I'm not going to watch the video again, but he said "four, at least four times", something like that, and I don't believe he indicated that those four didn't include the first mention. Doesn't really matter. Four times, five times in a day. I've seen people take more calls than that in a single day from their kids.
> Regardless, still really wouldn't constitute "Nattering > all day", perhaps just half of it. It is this part of the story that > seems a little off-key to me. I had originally thought that she had > kept bringing it up in order to rub Mr. Valada's nose in the subject & > perhaps goad him on. Then Mr. Valada himself said the comments > weren't directed at him and I disregarded that thesis.
Yeah, it doesn't appear that she was talking to him. Indeed, it isn't even clear that she was speaking directly to him the first time, except to correct his use of pronoun.
> >> >> Also on imposing religion, if he said, "God will damn you for your > >> >> deviant behavior", then yes that's imposing his religion. But if he > >> >> said, "my religious beliefs are that your behavior is deviant," that, > >> >> IMO, is not imposing his religion.
> >> >> Josh Rosenbluth
> >> >I believe that if we had more information, we'd find that Vadala > >> >actually called her "deviant" and/or "immoral". He did use the word > >> >"deviant" with HR, and he put it in writing, so if the manager > >> >actually said that that is the word he used, the likelihood is that he > >> >did indeed use that word, though he denies it now.
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:26:20 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> <patmagro...@null.net> wrote: > >On Nov 14, 8:53 pm, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:46:32 -0800 (PST), Enos Penvy
> >> <enospe...@null.net> wrote: > >> >On Nov 13, 6:27 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 13, 6:19 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 13, 6:07 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > Listen, he did some damage from which he'd never recover in that > >> >> > > > > > position. Why give him another chance? Why not just send him on his > >> >> > > > > > way? Why wait for a second or third or fourth person to be subjected > >> >> > > > > > to his unsolicited opinions? Would you suggest that we would give a > >> >> > > > > > person who called someone a "nigger" in a small office another > >> >> > > > > > chance?
> >> >> > > > > It is presposterous to compare saying nigger (or faggot) to saying > >> >> > > > > that you believe homosexual behavior is deviant.
> >> >> > > > Under Massachusetts law and the policies of Brookstone, saying "you're > >> >> > > > a nigger" and saying "you're deviant because you're a homosexual" are > >> >> > > > equally wrong, even if the conditions of being black and being gay > >> >> > > > aren't the same.
> >> >> > > There is a difference between "you're deviant because you're a > >> >> > > homosexual" and "I believe that homosexual behavior is > >> >> > > deviant"
> >> >> > Technically, there is a difference. Practically, however, pulling a > >> >> > known homosexual person aside and saying the latter to that person is > >> >> > basically the equivalent of the former.
> >> >> I disagree.
> >> >Fine. From you're name, I'm going to assume that you're Jewish. So > >> >consider:
> >> >You wish four different people in your office a Happy Hannukah. A > >> >Christian coworker goes out of his way to pull you aside, because he's > >> >offended by your Jewishness. He advises you that Jews are hebes and > >> >kikes and will be going to hell because they don't believe that Jesus > >> >was the savior, and (perhaps) he requests that you not wish anyone > >> >else a Happy Hannukah.
> >> Just out of curiosity, why would a Jewish person wish a Christian a > >> Happy Hanukah? > >> Seems stupid to wish a "Happy" something to a person > >> who doesn't celebrate something.
> >I wasn't suggesting that he wished Christians a Happy Hannukah. (I'm > >not Jewish, but have received cards, and once got a dreidel from a > >friend and coworker. I loved my little dreidel!)
> >> >Gee. Would you take that personally? Since he's pulled you aside, > >> >hasn't he singled you out? And hasn't he singled you out because you > >> >identify as Jewish?
> >> Perhaps, but he's also self-identified as a dumbass. BFD. I'm sorry > >> but the whole issue of "trigger words" is getting rather stupid.
> >> >> > It is understood that if you > >> >> > think that homosexuals are deviant, that you believe the homosexual > >> >> > person to whom you're speaking is deviant. Simple logic.
> >> >> The latter statement does not say that homosexuals are deviant. It > >> >> says homosexual behavior is deviant.
> >> >And the next logical conclusion is... what? A person who practices an > >> >act that he has judged to be "deviant" -- which is used as a > >> >pejorative term even though the word itself isn't technically > >> >judgmental -- is a deviant.
> >> Oui but of course since Homosexuality is deviant from the societal > >> norm. Thus calling a Homosexual a deviant is a true statement of > >> fact. However, when you attach the "immoral" your accusing them of > >> violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct > >> usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of > >> personal and social ethics and/or being licentious or lascivious. > >> These are judgment calls not in evidence as a fact.
> >> >(I don't think it's clear if he called the woman deviant, or if he > >> >called homosexuality deviant, or if he called homosexual behavior > >> >deviant. What HE has said publicly is that HOMOSEXUALITY -- the state > >> >of being attracted to members of the same sex -- is "bad stuff". Now, > >> >I think most of us are in agreement, having seen the termination > >> >letter, that this is not what he said, and that he likely used the > >> >words "deviant" and "immoral", as instructed by God.)
> >> He would have had to call the woman "a" deviant, which is different > >> then being deviant.
> >Not if it's assumed that a person practicing a particular form of > >deviancy is, by definition, a deviant. I mean, we don't need to say > >that a person who eats meat is a "meat-eater" -- it's understood, by > >definition, no?
> >> I personally think it was when he threw in the > >> "immoral" that he crossed the line, but that is nit-picking (no > >> offense to the "nits" amongst us).
> >> >> > > (coming from someone who doesn't believe gay people exist).
> >> >> > There is no indication that he doesn't believe that gay people exist. > >> >> > Indeed, if they didn't exist, he wouldn't have had to say anything at > >> >> > all. It'd be akin to talking about Martians, which would likely gain > >> >> > him a visit with a psychiatrist.
> >> >> You misunderstand. He likely thinks homosexuality is completely > >> >> defined by behavior. That is, it is "what you do", not "who you > >> >> are". There are people who engage in homosexual behavior, but no > >> >> homosexuals (all his beliefs, not mine).
> >> >I don't see where he implies this... Even the Catholic church > >> >recognizes the difference between the internal state and the > >> >behavior. In the end, it's unimportant what he thinks. He insulted a > >> >coworker; the only reason this anti-gay insult was directed at her is > >> >because she is gay, and that is grounds for dismissal.
> >> So it wouldn't be immoral to be homosexual, but so if you were > >> "straight" and engaged in Homosexual Behavior such as prison inmates > >> often do?
> >Depends on what one's morality is, I guess. We aren't all in > >agreement about what is and what is not moral.
> >> I do concur that in the end it is not what he felt, but what the > >> subject of his comments felt. At this time we really don't know as > >> she hasn't said. If I called you a faggot, we you be offended or > >> happy that I recognized the fact? Or even surprised that I confused > >> you with a bundle of sticks?
> >In this forum, I take it with a grain of salt. In the workplace, if > >you pulled me aside, said it judgmentally, and meant it, I think you > >can understand how I would be uncomfortable and insulted, and maybe > >even threatened. I think you might also be able to see how your > >staying on in that workplace would be uncomfortable for both of us and > >for those around us, whatever their opinions on homosexuality might > >be.
> Well the person who would say such things would normally considered an > Asshole. I highly doubt an Asshole would feel badly about acting in > his nature.
Right, but consider that other people in the workplace are going to hear about it. They'd start treating him differently. He'd feel it. Maybe he wouldn't know where it was coming from, but he'd feel it. So would everyone else. A boss who was on the side of (and possibly a friend of the offended) would just wait for some reason to fire such a person. That's why this kind of statement -- which can NEVER be taken back -- is so inappropriate in the workplace.
> If the comment would make him uncomfortable, I doubt he > would have said it in the first place. Now as to you feeling > uncomfortable, yes of course I can see that. > --
> >> >> >>>> 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 if people > >> >> >>>> think > >> >> >>>> that they have lost a job because of gay discrimination.
> >> >> >>> 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.
> >> >> >> Yeah. He harassed a co-worker and really shouldn't wonder about why > >> >> >> he got fired.
> >> >> >> insulted his supervisor. that will get you fired every time.
> >> >> > Not a co-worker, not a Supervisor -- a visiting store manager means a > >> >> > manager from another store. Rather obliviously somebody he had never > >> >> > even met before. Now exactly what was her agenda bringing up her > >> >> > sexuality in the workplace?
> >> >> His store manager knew that he disliked homosexual behavior and wanted > >> >> to fire him for that reason. Not wanting to de-closet the next best > >> >> route was to bring in a homosexual friend, another store manager, to > >> >> use to bait the guy. Homosexuals in supervisory positions do it all the > >> >> time.
> >> >Gotta hand it to you this time, BE-VA, that's an interesting take. > >> >Not likely here, but interesting nonetheless.
> >> Glad you understood all of his post, I didn't get the meaning.
> >It's BE-VA's conspiracy theory, in which Vadala's manager might have > >disliked him, and, knowing (presumably) that Vadala hated gays, > >brought in a manager from another store to "bait" Vadala.
> Thanks, now I got it. Personally I'm not all that big into conspiracy > cases.
> >> >Anyway, baiting is common, even in law enforcement. The person who > >> >takes the bait, however, is not let off the hook for his bad behavior > >> >just because he was baited. Gee, didn't we learn that from personal > >> >experience in grade school, when a friend would get us to do > >> >something, and we tried to blame them for our own wrongdoing?
> >> I initially read it more as "goading" as opposed to baiting. I had > >> thought that once she knew the guy was uncomfortable with the subject > >> that she was deliberately rubbing his face in it.
> >There's no indication that she would have been aware of this kid's > >feelings on the subject until he took her aside and insulted her.
> Again, he claims that his discomfort was obvious
Actually, he didn't claim that. He says he changed the subject and went about his work day, after he was told that the affianced was female. He makes no indication that he made his discomfort known with respect to any of the further mentions (which appear to not have been directed at him, but rather overheard).
> -- perhaps he mimed > sticking his fingers down his throat & puking, I don't know why he > though it was obvious. That is not to say that my experience says > that when a person shifts topic gears, stutters in response, or walks > away that I don't usually suspect he/she didn't want to engage in the > discussion.
People in the workplace have other things to do, and I've never suspected any discomfort because of a change of subject or walking away... then again, I'm not one to discuss my private lives with people I don't know in the office.
> >> This I have in fact > >> seen more then once. However, this does not appear to be the case as > >> Mr. Valada hasn't said her comments were directed at him, just that he > >> didn't like her talking about her girlfriend.
> >And that's what HR confirmed was his problem. "You [Peter Vadala] > >explained that simply by clarifying to you that her fiancee is a > >female, she put you in an uncomfortable position and you were > >compelled to tell her that her lifestyle was immoral."
> Well there he is articulating his level of comfort with the situation. > Problem is that it was to the wrong person at the wrong time. If he > had told the woman in question that she was making him uncomfortable > because of all of the references to a Gay lover, then perhaps he might > have had a point by making the discussion about him and not her.
Even if we could turn back time, I doubt, given his "I hate people like that" comment, that he'd do that even now. Anyway, he apparently found another job in retail. Maybe he learned a lesson. Time will tell.
> On Nov 15, 7:38 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 5:25 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 15, 4:50 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > > > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > > > The statement about Jewish belief, depending on the exact > > > > > circumstances and wording, might not be intended to demean.
> > > > Agreed. However, if you had just told the guy that you're Jewish, and > > > > he pulls you aside to give you his religious opinion, he's imposing > > > > upon you his religious beliefs. So with respect to imposing upon you > > > > his religious beliefs, there is no need to determine his intention or > > > > lack thereof to demean.
> > > I disagree - and it's my company to set policy for. If he didn't > > > intent to demean, he gets a second chance.
> > > > > A person who does not intend to demean, now realizes he did demean, > > > > > and won't do it again, ought to be able to stay. He's not hateful
> > > > "I hate people like that." That's not hateful?
> > > If that's part of the record,
> > It is.
> > > then he might be gone on the first > > > offense.
> > He was.
> > > And if he didn't, then he might not be gone. The facts make > > > a difference - but I do not support a blanket zero-tolerance > > > harassment policy based on intent to demean.
> > And, given the facts -- including the statement "I hate people like > > that", which was uttered around the same time -- you really believe > > it was not his intent to demean?
> I don't know. It would require a full finding of facts.
Well, Josh, I guess that's part of my confusion in your beliefs about zero-tolerance. Here's you're talking about "facts". Actual intent -- unless it's written down somewhere or discussed beforehand -- is virtually unprovable as "fact".
Perhaps easier to determine is what was felt by the person who was offended (even though we also can't prove as "fact" what she felt). The woman immediately expressed to HR that she was offended. Would a reasonable person be offended by these statements in this situation? You might even go a step further and ask if a reasonable person would know that such statements were offensive, especially considering that the person had just attended a seminar in which the issue at hand was discussed.
But trying to determine "intent"... that's a tough one.
juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote: >> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote: >>> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote: >>>>> "All The More Reason" <banliberal...@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 unemploy- >>>>> ment lines for the rest of his miserable and abjectly-ignorant life! >>>> And of course, with your post you have committed a "hate crime" >>>> just as agregious as the guy who was fired. >>> Telling the TRUTH about a HATEFUL bigot is the **opposite** of >>> a hate crime. It's a reminder to society of the sort of irrational and >>> unconscionable meanness and ignorance we once put BEHIND us in >>> this country (the segregationists) and now need to put behind us again. >>> Once and for all.
>>> There is NO EXCUSE in a country that is SUPPOSED to be exemplary >>> and free for bigots to publicly disparaging people over TRIVIALITES. >>> And race, sexual orientation, eye color, and handedness are all TRIVIAL >>> variations of NORMALCY. >> This was a case about harassment on the job. Your statement sounds >> broader? Are you saying that any public disparaging of race, etc. >> should be outlawed? > Not at all. One is entirely free to say what one wishes in public. > He could open a website, post on youtube or set up a myspace page > discussing his views. He could go out on the sidewalk or in a public > park and set up a soap box and preach to his heart's content. However > these rights are somewhat limited in the workplace.
Good answer! I couldn't have said it any better, and you beat me to it.
>>>>> THIS IS WHY THE WORLD HATES AMERICA ! >>>> The world needn't worry. In just a few more years, such bigots >>>> as that louse who was rightfully fired will be as SCARCE as >>>> segregationists and pterodactyls. >>> You are one... >> ...SENSIBLE and INTELLIGENT egalitarian. > You're an asshole...
ROTFL!!! **THAT** from:
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
BILL TAYLOR: Immature Loser
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:36:52 -0400, On 7-19-09, "Attila" <procho...@here.now> wrote:
>>> A troll. He will tire soon. >> Bill Taylor has ALWAYS been nothing but an ignorant and >> worthless troll. But he apparently is too bone-DUMB to tire, >> even after being PROVEN wrong constantly. > Most of those people could not care less about being proven > anything. They like to see their comments in print, like to see > they are 'important' enough to get a response, and are delighted > to have enough of an impact to get a rise out of anyone about > anything.
> A psychologist could make a lot of detailed observations about > them -- things like not being much in real live so they must try to > become someone here.
I'll bet that "profound inferiority complex" would be a phrase that the psychologist would employ very EARLY in that analysis. "Immature" and "arrested development" would almost surely come into play as well, I feel certain.
> They are like the people who drive at below the speed limit in > the left lane. No one pays any attention to them anywhere else > but at least they can have some kind of a psychological impact > there. It feeds their ego.
I can sum that mentality/mindset up in one word: "Loser."
On 2009-11-13 12:15:14 -0500, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> said:
> On Nov 12, 2:15 pm, "Non scrivetemi" > <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote: >> In article <14eaa124-b5d5-452a-aa26- >> eb6412b8f...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
>> Federal law covers discrimination based on religion or sex, but >> it says absolutely nothing about those sexually confused faggots.
> Your ignorance and bigotry is appalling
You and other male homosexuality are the primary vector for the spreading of a deadly disease, AIDS, among citizens of the United States. Your dishonesty and dishonorable behavior is characteristic of all homosexuals.
On 2009-11-12 21:43:20 -0500, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> said:
> Would you suggest that we would give a > person who called someone a "nigger" in a small office another > chance?
You need to get out more and not just confine yourself to white-boy gay bars. What you are suggesting does happens daily in offices in which the ethnicity of the majority of employees is Afro-American.
> On Nov 13, 2:37 am, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffR > emedy.com> > " <x...@m.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:46:52 -0800,
>> "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrot > e: >>>> "All The More Reason" <banliberal...@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 beli > eved >>>>> 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 unemploy- >>>> ment lines for the rest of his miserable and abjectly-ignorant life! >>> And of course, with your post you have committed a "hate crime" >>> just as agregious as the guy who was fired.
>> Telling the TRUTH about a HATEFUL bigot is the **opposite** of >> a hate crime. It's a reminder to society of the sort of irrational and >> unconscionable meanness and ignorance we once put BEHIND us in >> this country (the segregationists) and now need to put behind us again. >> Once and for all.
>> There is NO EXCUSE in a country that is SUPPOSED to be exemplary >> and free for bigots to publicly disparaging people over TRIVIALITES. >> And race, sexual orientation, eye color, and handedness are all TRIVIAL >> variations of NORMALCY.
> This was a case about harassment on the job. Your statement sounds > broader? Are you saying that any public disparaging of race, etc. > should be outlawed?
That's exactly what he says over and over and over and over...Crazy Craig Chilton hasn't made an original post in three years. watch him for a day or two and you'll see that all he has is a rack of Boiler Plate.
On 2009-11-13 12:27:24 -0500, juanjo <jonpe...@mindspring.com> said:
> On Nov 12, 5:41 pm, BE-VA <blackwater-evangel...@testland.org> wrote: >> On 2009-11-10 01:31:38 -0500, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> said:
(...)
>> His store manager knew that he disliked homosexual behavior and wanted >> to fire him for that reason. Not wanting to de-closet the next best >> route was to bring in a homosexual friend, another store manager, to >> use to bait the guy. Homosexuals in supervisory positions do it all the >> time.
> Man are you a seer or something? How is it you possess information no > one else has possession of? Oh wait, I know, t is beamed to yoiu > thorugh your tin foil hat.
The Ouija Board says you suck dicks... ********** "Ouija Board -- Rationalists contend that users direct the path of the triangle to produce a word. Some people may be convinced that the "powers" of the ouija board are real because they are unaware that they are in fact moving the piece and therefore assume that the piece must be moving due to some other "spiritual force". ********** I simply think that it's common knowledge that you suck dicks and doing so imparts in you a hatred of all normal people, i.e., heterosexuals..
|
