Printable View
Massachusetts Man Says He Was Fired for Telling Colleague Her Gay Marriage Is Wrong
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html
Quote:
"I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up," Vadala said. "By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, 'Regarding your homosexuality, I think that's bad stuff.'"
Good.
http://www.foxnews.com/images/583052...vadala_320.jpg
Oh man this guy just looks like a bible-thumping homo-bashing douchebag too.
ha, good shit.
Just watched "Milk" last week, i liked it.
This guy needs his ass kicked though
Oh go fuck yourself you piggish intolerant hate preaching cock sucking mother fucker.Quote:
"I see, like all real Christians, homosexuals as people who, like me, are sinners and need to be told the truth in a loving way," he said. "In this situation, I took issue with the behavior. I think it's lunacy to call that type of behavior marriage in any kind of form. I had to express that I'm intolerant of that behavior. It's a love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin kind of deal."
MOTHER POOPYHEAD MY ASS, i call him a MOTHER FUCKER.
Had this been in Missouruh, she would have been fired for being a witch, he would have been heralded as being defender of god's great justice, and his gift would have been a Larry Craig glory hole
wow. just wow. Another dude wasting my fucking oxygen. Good job, dude. you really are wasting it well.
wat a douchebag
A girl on my Facebook replied to this with "What happened to freedom of speech?"
Thoughts?
Generally, employees of private sector employers have no constitutional “free speech” rights in the workplace, so take pause before you wrap yourself in the flag and speak your mind. In both Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (1974) and Wagner v. General Elec. Co., 760 F.Supp. 1146 (E.D. Pa. 1991), Pennsylvania courts rejected wrongful discharge claims based on First Amendment protects asserted by employees who were terminated for criticisms of their employers.
from http://www.lancasterlawblog.com/2007...e-think-again/
i wasnt going to say anything, but this seems like a case where the jackass is finally the one who get wrongfully treated. From what i read, it almost seems like the girl was provoking him since she mentioned it 4 times in a single visit. IIRC, it also seems like he never said anything really bad to her face and that she completely overreacted after her provocation. So to me, it seems like he was unjustly fired.
That being said, fuck that queer bashing homo.
The last straw is never the whole story, she may have provoked him at the right time because of history. Remember table image, she may have expected that response because he's done the same thing many times.
Well if he had said he thought it was wrong that she was married to a black man we would just lol and go on with our business so what the fuck @ people defending this sack of shit.
I just watched the movie religulous with bill maher. Pretty par on with what's wrong with religion and people in general.
Yeah his summary at the end is dead on. Also lol @ the new Jesus guy saying if he was Satan he would try his best at that job too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
The Free Speech clause in the First Amendment applies to the government not being allowed to take legal action against anybody for their speech; it has absolutely nothing with how speech is treated by non-governmental, non-legal entitiesQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Tell her to stop listening to the right-wing nutbags and propaganda machines who don't care about facts and spew this nonsense everytime somebody expresses a viewpoint which is not theirs. Whether she knows it or not, they're the only people who have been talking about freedom of speech for quite some time, and yet they've gotten the facts wrong 100% of the time
While I think spoon's analogy to a black person fits perfectly, I'd like to justify it even furtherQuote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The article obviously does not give all the details, but two things jumped out at me
1) The woman mentioned that she married her partner. Doesn't give any context whatsoever. Could be that they just had the wedding, and like any normal person, she talked about it. Could be that the guy was never even part of any conversation but overheard her talking to other people. Could be lots of stuff. In no way does it suggest any kind of taunting or out of the ordinary stuff.
2) The guy was only working there a few weeks before he got fired. I think it's very likely that he did not get fired solely for this reason. Clauses like 'no tolerance policy' are words on paper; they're regularly malleable under specific circumstances. I have personally been involved in a 'no tolerance' situation before, but there was never any notion of terminating employment because all parties were appreciated employees. On top of that, he likely cost the company thousands in training, and turning around and firing somebody for things other than incompetence after spending that kind of money isn't that likely.
Especially given this guy's retarded rhetoric and demeanor to the press, it suggests that he was causing problems before, and this was probably just the trigger. Expect Fox to not report any of that stuff even if it came up.
haha, very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If I was still practicing I would have no problems representing him.
There's a difference between proselytizing and responding to a conversation. I think this situation falls closer to the latter.
If your boss at work asks you what do you think of gays? You should not have to lie and should not be fired for saying gays are sinners. Likewise if your boss repeatedly starts talking about herself and her partner (totally unrelated to work) to you, I think you can argue that she is bringing any commentary about her lifestyle into the workplace and that saying you disagree with that lifestyle is fair game.
Being 100% serious, not sarcastic at all. I'm almost scared to ask because it's going to come off as me being a smartass but I'm curious. What if she was white and he had made the same comment about her marrying a black guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by chardrian
^ naw that's a legit question, and I would also like to know the answer. I've been under the assumption that businesses have a high degree of ambiguous leeway when it comes to determining criteria by which they determine their terms and conditions
If she was white and she kept making statements about how she just married a "black" guy and kept emphasizing that he was black, then I think the employee should have every right to say something on the lines of I don't think races should mix.
I also should add that I have not done any legal research in this at all - this is just a gut reaction I would have if I was a lawyer and this homophobic retard walked into my office. I would tell him that I would need to research the issue further, but as long as I felt my argument could be made in court that she basically opened the door to negative homophobic comments being made by bringing up her personal life, then I would take the douche on as a client.
Neato, thanks for responding. :]
lol, God clearly could not have chosen a better spokesman to convince this lady to divorce her partner.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow