Massachusetts Man Says He Was Fired for Telling Colleague Her Gay Marriage Is Wrong

[KittenKoder]

I must admit, I'm drawn on this particular case.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so long as they do not commit unjust or unfair actions based on said opinion. However ... I am a very strong "right to work" supporter (I know almost everything I support has "right" in the name of it) and when you are at work you are paid to do a job, anything beyond that is the companies call. Being freelance offers a bit more freedom in that respect, but when I was a wage slave I followed their prescribed rules for being their employee ... because that's what they were paying me for. Knowing his history in that job would help determine whether he deserved firing over it though, if he repeatedly broke the contract of his employment then yes, firing was just. But if this was his first error, then no, firing is a bit extreme.

 

[KittenKoder]

The really funny thing about this thread is that a handful of contributors, assumingly male, seem to greatly lament the fact that society has stripped them of their freedom to disparage women openly, freely and to their face. Their logic goes something like this:

"If I want to tell that fat bitch in accounting that she belongs in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, well then damn it that's my God given right! And any culture or society that oppresses my freedom to offend and disparage others with impunity is fuckin fascist man!"


You guys are awesome!

ihopehefails is particularly awesome in this regard.

I'm not defending "get back to the kitchen" but defending someone's right to express or even have that view. Has it occurred to you that people have a right to hold onto whatever view they want in life no matter how offensive it is to others?

Now you might say that the employer has the right to fire whoever he/she wants and that I won't contest but the most sexual harassment rules are merely ways to protect the company from getting sued in court so if the court deems it sexual harassment to express "women must stay in the kitchen" then companies tell their employees that they can't say that. This means that its not the companies deciding what can be said but those who feel that people don't have the right to express those views by using the civil court system.

Imagine the uproar if a whole bunch of christians were able to define sexual harassment as being flamboyantly gay in the workplace and employers would be subject to being sued if there is an openly gay person around. Would the employer then instruct the gay employee to not be so damn flamboyant or open about their way of life? And at the same time the christians can go around and preech their morality to everyone. Wouldn't that be a little unbalanced?

Actually ... in many jobs it is against the employment contract, not because of religious reasons as you equated here, but simply because such is not the "face" of the company. It would be the same as a clown who talked business all the time, or a lawyer wearing a big red nose in court ... it just doesn't get the job done. However, there are some cases when it's beneficial ... who better to ask clothing advice than a flamboyant gay man? Or construction from a butch lesbian? Some stereotypes are based in common occurrences, and can even prove beneficial to all.

 

[paperview]

Private employer.

If they want to fire people who express a problem with gay marriage and keep people who favor it, I have no problem with that. Same is true of the reverse situation. And the same goes for this specific situation - I don't see a problem with a private employer firing someone over this.

Except that I can't even imagine the backlash that would follow from an employee being fired for expressing support of gay marriage.

Here are just a few stories (there are more) where people are fired for expressing an opinion on same sex marriage (they were in favor of it):

Fired because he wrote an Op-Ed in favor of Same Sex Marriage:

[SIZE=+1]BYU fires teacher over op-ed stance[/SIZE]
The Salt Lake Tribune (UT) ^ | June 14, 2006 | Todd Hollingshead

PROVO - As an American citizen, Jeffrey Nielsen felt compelled to publicly question the LDS Church's opposition to same-sex marriage. As a Brigham Young University instructor, he now is paying the price.
The LDS-owned school will not rehire Nielsen after spring term because of his remarks in an op-ed piece earlier this month.
"I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral," the part-time philosophy teacher and practicing Latter-day Saint wrote in the June 4 Salt Lake Tribune.
Four days after the column ran, BYU Department of Philosophy Chairman Daniel Graham sent Nielsen a letter informing him of his dismissal.

BYU fires teacher over op-ed stance - Salt Lake Tribune (article has been archived, Use 'Search Archives' to bring up full story)

Same-sex marriage support costs Catholic woman her ministry

By Scott Taylor, Staff Writer
Published: Oct 31, 2009 12:00 am
Pamella Starbird Beliveau

LEWISTON — A local Catholic woman has lost her position as a lay minister at the Prince of Peace Parish churches this week after penning a newspaper column in support of legalizing same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage support costs Catholic woman her ministry | Sun Journal

------------------

These opinions were expressed as citizens, not employees.

Did you even hear of these stories, much less a backlash?

 

[paperview]

Thats right. You SHOULD get fired for voicing such an opinion- although I am quite sure anyone voicing the opinion that gay marriage is ok would get a pass. I am also sure that if the individual was fired for expressing support for gay marriage, the OP would be screamin bloody hell. MMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM- nothin like a fully programmed lefty....

he didn't get fired for "voicing an opinion". he got fired for harassing a gay co-worker. and if someone were harassing one of my employees, I'd fire their sorry butts, too.

I'm wondering how he sexually harassed her when all he did was quote his belief about her relationship. He could have expressed his belief that adultry was wrong to a cheating co-worker and not get fired for sexual harassment but since the topic was one about gay marriage then he was subject to being fired. The question I want to know is why is it ok to express an opinion about someone's sex life in one situation but not in another that happens to involve a hot political topic that the left supports.

That is the issue I am trying to raise here.

It's pretty clear you haven't even read the details of this story.

A brief review of this thread and the facts surrounding the case might make you look a little less ignorant.

(but I doubt it.)

 

[paperview]

I certainly cannot deny your experience, however, my experience is just the opposite.

I do understand the Christian experience, and I don't believe it is our duty to go around condemning people. However, there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion when the topic is on the floor.

If one was fired, both should have been. The topic was either wrong, or just one side of the topic was wrong. Can it really be that only once side of the topic is wrong, and illegal to discuss? I don't think so.

The topic got "on the floor" because of a simple conversation stating
her fiancee would be picking her up. He then referred to her fiancee as a "he." She clarified it was a "she."
That's it. She said "it's a she."

That set him off. He said that made him uncomfortable.

When asked by HR how she made him uncomfortable, he stated that
----> by simply saying her "so called fiance" was a female, it made him uncomfortable!
(yeah, that's how he refers to her - "so called" - as if she isn't really a fiancee).
Simply because she's a she!

He also says he felt compelled to tell her her lifestyle was immoral.
Compelled? Really? He has no control on his ability to keep his opinions to himself regarding a perfectly legal event? He was "compelled" to call her a deviant?

She stated a fact. It's a "she." He, an employee on probation, expressed his opinion, and in a very derogatory and unprofessional manner.

In case you missed the earlier posts on this, there is a nearly 7 minute video where he cuts his own throat with his words posted upthread.

Note also: He not only referred to her as a "deviant" - he also expressed that he "hates people like that."

Can only the gays be offended, and not the straights? I think not. What arrogance to feel like th gays can talk about gay marriage, but the straights cannot. Arrogance again when gays think that it should be illegal to discuss being against gays but anyone can discuss gays as a good thing, and that is OK.

Double standards don't get it with me.

Since when are straight people harassed when they talk about their wedding? When? Where? Never mind simply noting the fact their mate is a he or she?

And who the hell said anything about it being illegal? You. Only you did.
Silly assed-nutbag.

 

[Smartt33]

he didn't get fired for "voicing an opinion". he got fired for harassing a gay co-worker. and if someone were harassing one of my employees, I'd fire their sorry butts, too.

I'm wondering how he sexually harassed her when all he did was quote his belief about her relationship. He could have expressed his belief that adultry was wrong to a cheating co-worker and not get fired for sexual harassment but since the topic was one about gay marriage then he was subject to being fired. The question I want to know is why is it ok to express an opinion about someone's sex life in one situation but not in another that happens to involve a hot political topic that the left supports.

That is the issue I am trying to raise here.

It's pretty clear you haven't even read the details of this story.

A brief review of this thread and the facts surrounding the case might make you look a little less ignorant.

(but I doubt it.)

I think "ihop" was correct. Any review of any thread will nmot give anyone any good evidence to support or deny anything. It is all opinions. The story, well, the story tells us some of what we need to know, but we will not know it all.

With that said, there is a double standard, and it is leaning toward political correctness. The employee should not have been fired unless the woman was also fired. If the topic was the issue, both would need to be fired (I really don't think either should be fired). If specific comments that "offend" are the issue, then if one was fired, boith should be. To be honest I am offended when any discussion is taking in support od a moral issue where I am not allowed to make a comment while the other person is.

If an open conversation in the workplace is taking place, I believe if I am within earshot of it I can feel free to comment on it. I aldo believe I need to do it politely, and with respect. However, politeness and respect do not prevent me from expressing opposition to the issue.

Sionce so many people are complaining that they hear things that are offensive, when they are not in the conversation, I believe the "right" has the same freedom to express offense.

 

[Smartt33]

I certainly cannot deny your experience, however, my experience is just the opposite.

I do understand the Christian experience, and I don't believe it is our duty to go around condemning people. However, there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion when the topic is on the floor.

If one was fired, both should have been. The topic was either wrong, or just one side of the topic was wrong. Can it really be that only once side of the topic is wrong, and illegal to discuss? I don't think so.

The topic got "on the floor" because of a simple conversation stating
her fiancee would be picking her up. He then referred to her fiancee as a "he." She clarified it was a "she."
That's it. She said "it's a she."

That set him off. He said that made him uncomfortable.

When asked by HR how she made him uncomfortable, he stated that
----> by simply saying her "so called fiance" was a female, it made him uncomfortable!
(yeah, that's how he refers to her - "so called" - as if she isn't really a fiancee).
Simply because she's a she!

He also says he felt compelled to tell her her lifestyle was immoral.
Compelled? Really? He has no control on his ability to keep his opinions to himself regarding a perfectly legal event? He was "compelled" to call her a deviant?

She stated a fact. It's a "she." He, an employee on probation, expressed his opinion, and in a very derogatory and unprofessional manner.

In case you missed the earlier posts on this, there is a nearly 7 minute video where he cuts his own throat with his words posted upthread.

Note also: He not only referred to her as a "deviant" - he also expressed that he "hates people like that."

Can only the gays be offended, and not the straights? I think not. What arrogance to feel like th gays can talk about gay marriage, but the straights cannot. Arrogance again when gays think that it should be illegal to discuss being against gays but anyone can discuss gays as a good thing, and that is OK.

Double standards don't get it with me.

Since when are straight people harassed when they talk about their wedding? When? Where? Never mind simply noting the fact their mate is a he or she?

And who the hell said anything about it being illegal? You. Only you did.
Silly assed-nutbag.

There was no harrassment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's been my experience that there are a lot of evangelical Christians who feel it is there "duty" to "spread the word of God" by condemning other people and their private choices. They actually interpret the Bible as endorsing such behavior and they take pride in doing it.

In their minds they haven't done anything wrong and the fact that they suffer consequences for doing it just makes them more proud because they think they are "earning crowns in heaven" because they've been "persecuted" for their faith.

So this guy got busted - he suffered consequences. I guess now he can claim an extra crown in heaven or something.

He is actually using his right of free speech to spread the word of God just like the lesbian is doing when she is talking about her "wedding". They both deserve a chance to express their views no matter how offensive they are to other people but the fact that you used the term "busted" as if he committed a crime concerns me. It is not a crime to preach Christianity but I'm afraid your vurnacular reveals what we on the right believe about the left and that is you see christianity as a crime that gets "busted".

Do you see why I don't believe you should call yourselves liberal anymore?

I am a Christian

Do you see why I don't believe you should call yourself someone who doesn't jump to unwarrented conclusions?

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm wondering how he sexually harassed her when all he did was quote his belief about her relationship. He could have expressed his belief that adultry was wrong to a cheating co-worker and not get fired for sexual harassment but since the topic was one about gay marriage then he was subject to being fired. The question I want to know is why is it ok to express an opinion about someone's sex life in one situation but not in another that happens to involve a hot political topic that the left supports.

That is the issue I am trying to raise here.

It's pretty clear you haven't even read the details of this story.

A brief review of this thread and the facts surrounding the case might make you look a little less ignorant.

(but I doubt it.)

I think "ihop" was correct. Any review of any thread will nmot give anyone any good evidence to support or deny anything. It is all opinions. The story, well, the story tells us some of what we need to know, but we will not know it all.

With that said, there is a double standard, and it is leaning toward political correctness. The employee should not have been fired unless the woman was also fired. If the topic was the issue, both would need to be fired (I really don't think either should be fired). If specific comments that "offend" are the issue, then if one was fired, boith should be. To be honest I am offended when any discussion is taking in support od a moral issue where I am not allowed to make a comment while the other person is.

If an open conversation in the workplace is taking place, I believe if I am within earshot of it I can feel free to comment on it. I aldo believe I need to do it politely, and with respect. However, politeness and respect do not prevent me from expressing opposition to the issue.

Sionce so many people are complaining that they hear things that are offensive, when they are not in the conversation, I believe the "right" has the same freedom to express offense.

Even though I disagree completely with your beliefs, I do enjoy reading your posts, and this is why. You actually think about things before reacting.

... and this morning you caught me in a very sudden good mood.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

He is actually using his right of free speech to spread the word of God just like the lesbian is doing when she is talking about her "wedding". They both deserve a chance to express their views no matter how offensive they are to other people but the fact that you used the term "busted" as if he committed a crime concerns me. It is not a crime to preach Christianity but I'm afraid your vurnacular reveals what we on the right believe about the left and that is you see christianity as a crime that gets "busted".

Do you see why I don't believe you should call yourselves liberal anymore?

Not so much a crime or criminals but more like unwanted pest, kinda like termites. I need christians trying to save my soul as much as i need herpes. If you want gay people to keep their lifestyle to themselves, set an example by keeping your religion to yourself.

But they do have the right to express their views on their own time sure, but at work no they dont. Most companies have HR policies with the intent of preventing employees from saying that that could be remotely offensive (to a seller, customer or fellow employee) about certain protected categories such as race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And if their policies are violated employers can fire the fuck out of these people.

Why can't we apply the same rule to gay woman? Why can't I say she is free to express her views on her own time because what is good for the christian is good for the lesbian but it seems to me that you craft your argument in such a way that the lesbian can say whatever view she wants but when the christian expresses his own belief he is told he to he can't.

The Christian is protected under such policies as well. The woman should have been fired if she said something at work that offends his Christian beliefs such as "I dont care what your little imaginary skyfairy hippie has to say about my marriage. Youre a truly simple minded idiot for believing in such a lie as Christianity."

At work she cant say such a thing but on her own time I say good for her.

 

[ihopehefails]

ihopehefails is particularly awesome in this regard.

I'm not defending "get back to the kitchen" but defending someone's right to express or even have that view. Has it occurred to you that people have a right to hold onto whatever view they want in life no matter how offensive it is to others?

Now you might say that the employer has the right to fire whoever he/she wants and that I won't contest but the most sexual harassment rules are merely ways to protect the company from getting sued in court so if the court deems it sexual harassment to express "women must stay in the kitchen" then companies tell their employees that they can't say that. This means that its not the companies deciding what can be said but those who feel that people don't have the right to express those views by using the civil court system.

Imagine the uproar if a whole bunch of christians were able to define sexual harassment as being flamboyantly gay in the workplace and employers would be subject to being sued if there is an openly gay person around. Would the employer then instruct the gay employee to not be so damn flamboyant or open about their way of life? And at the same time the christians can go around and preech their morality to everyone. Wouldn't that be a little unbalanced?

Actually ... in many jobs it is against the employment contract, not because of religious reasons as you equated here, but simply because such is not the "face" of the company. It would be the same as a clown who talked business all the time, or a lawyer wearing a big red nose in court ... it just doesn't get the job done. However, there are some cases when it's beneficial ... who better to ask clothing advice than a flamboyant gay man? Or construction from a butch lesbian? Some stereotypes are based in common occurrences, and can even prove beneficial to all.

I'm not actually questioning a company's right to fire someone but upset that companies have been forced into having rules in place for fear of being sued for sexual harassment. Rules that they themselves may not agree with because what if the owner felt that the employee had a right to express his own opinion at his company but feared being sued for sexual harassment so he had no choice to fire him. Its the courts that are forcing the hand in these actions and not the private employer.

 

[ihopehefails]

he didn't get fired for "voicing an opinion". he got fired for harassing a gay co-worker. and if someone were harassing one of my employees, I'd fire their sorry butts, too.

I'm wondering how he sexually harassed her when all he did was quote his belief about her relationship. He could have expressed his belief that adultry was wrong to a cheating co-worker and not get fired for sexual harassment but since the topic was one about gay marriage then he was subject to being fired. The question I want to know is why is it ok to express an opinion about someone's sex life in one situation but not in another that happens to involve a hot political topic that the left supports.

That is the issue I am trying to raise here.

It's pretty clear you haven't even read the details of this story.

A brief review of this thread and the facts surrounding the case might make you look a little less ignorant.

(but I doubt it.)

"I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral"

This is what was said in your reply. This opinion is harmless because he did not say anything threatening like "All fags must die". That would terminable because it is an actual threat to someone's safety at the workplace. He also did not say that gays should not be hired or promoted and even if he did it would not affect the hiring and promotion of any gay person since he was not in a position to hire or fire anyone.

A boss who says that gays can't be hired may be subject to equal employment laws but how does a fellow co-worker's politically incorrect opinion, who has no power over her employment situation, really affect her situation at work? It does not and the only reason he was fired was because his opinion was politically incorrect which is the real issue here. Its about a group of people in this country who believe that certain opinions should not be expressed and ideas should be squashed by silencing those that dare to express them.

 

[ihopehefails]

I certainly cannot deny your experience, however, my experience is just the opposite.

I do understand the Christian experience, and I don't believe it is our duty to go around condemning people. However, there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion when the topic is on the floor.

If one was fired, both should have been. The topic was either wrong, or just one side of the topic was wrong. Can it really be that only once side of the topic is wrong, and illegal to discuss? I don't think so.

The topic got "on the floor" because of a simple conversation stating
her fiancee would be picking her up. He then referred to her fiancee as a "he." She clarified it was a "she."
That's it. She said "it's a she."

That set him off. He said that made him uncomfortable.

When asked by HR how she made him uncomfortable, he stated that
----> by simply saying her "so called fiance" was a female, it made him uncomfortable!
(yeah, that's how he refers to her - "so called" - as if she isn't really a fiancee).
Simply because she's a she!

He also says he felt compelled to tell her her lifestyle was immoral.
Compelled? Really? He has no control on his ability to keep his opinions to himself regarding a perfectly legal event? He was "compelled" to call her a deviant?

She stated a fact. It's a "she." He, an employee on probation, expressed his opinion, and in a very derogatory and unprofessional manner.

In case you missed the earlier posts on this, there is a nearly 7 minute video where he cuts his own throat with his words posted upthread.

Note also: He not only referred to her as a "deviant" - he also expressed that he "hates people like that."

Can only the gays be offended, and not the straights? I think not. What arrogance to feel like th gays can talk about gay marriage, but the straights cannot. Arrogance again when gays think that it should be illegal to discuss being against gays but anyone can discuss gays as a good thing, and that is OK.

Double standards don't get it with me.

Since when are straight people harassed when they talk about their wedding? When? Where? Never mind simply noting the fact their mate is a he or she?

And who the hell said anything about it being illegal? You. Only you did.
Silly assed-nutbag.

The question about a double standard is not if it happens but would the same result happen. I think if straights were harassed in the way you described the only thing that would be done is for a complaint to be lodge and perhaps an employer may fire them for disturbing the workplace but he would not fear being sued over it by the straights. That is my main complaint over it. Its the courts that are selectively defining sexual harssment to cover all things politically incorrect so now the workplace defacto enforces politically correctness.

 

[jillian]

Thats right. You SHOULD get fired for voicing such an opinion- although I am quite sure anyone voicing the opinion that gay marriage is ok would get a pass. I am also sure that if the individual was fired for expressing support for gay marriage, the OP would be screamin bloody hell. MMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM- nothin like a fully programmed lefty....

he didn't get fired for "voicing an opinion". he got fired for harassing a gay co-worker. and if someone were harassing one of my employees, I'd fire their sorry butts, too.

I'm wondering how he sexually harassed her when all he did was quote his belief about her relationship. He could have expressed his belief that adultry was wrong to a cheating co-worker and not get fired for sexual harassment but since the topic was one about gay marriage then he was subject to being fired. The question I want to know is why is it ok to express an opinion about someone's sex life in one situation but not in another that happens to involve a hot political topic that the left supports.

That is the issue I am trying to raise here.

Where did I say he "sexually harassed" her. I said he "harassed" her...as in treated rudely and abusively.

like i said. if some yutz harassed one of my employees for any reason... i'd fire them.

end of story.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not defending "get back to the kitchen" but defending someone's right to express or even have that view. Has it occurred to you that people have a right to hold onto whatever view they want in life no matter how offensive it is to others?

Now you might say that the employer has the right to fire whoever he/she wants and that I won't contest but the most sexual harassment rules are merely ways to protect the company from getting sued in court so if the court deems it sexual harassment to express "women must stay in the kitchen" then companies tell their employees that they can't say that. This means that its not the companies deciding what can be said but those who feel that people don't have the right to express those views by using the civil court system.

Imagine the uproar if a whole bunch of christians were able to define sexual harassment as being flamboyantly gay in the workplace and employers would be subject to being sued if there is an openly gay person around. Would the employer then instruct the gay employee to not be so damn flamboyant or open about their way of life? And at the same time the christians can go around and preech their morality to everyone. Wouldn't that be a little unbalanced?

Actually ... in many jobs it is against the employment contract, not because of religious reasons as you equated here, but simply because such is not the "face" of the company. It would be the same as a clown who talked business all the time, or a lawyer wearing a big red nose in court ... it just doesn't get the job done. However, there are some cases when it's beneficial ... who better to ask clothing advice than a flamboyant gay man? Or construction from a butch lesbian? Some stereotypes are based in common occurrences, and can even prove beneficial to all.

I'm not actually questioning a company's right to fire someone but upset that companies have been forced into having rules in place for fear of being sued for sexual harassment. Rules that they themselves may not agree with because what if the owner felt that the employee had a right to express his own opinion at his company but feared being sued for sexual harassment so he had no choice to fire him. Its the courts that are forcing the hand in these actions and not the private employer.

While I am against the government forcing companies to do most things, sexual harassment laws are not really just for them, and they are ones I agree with but they will have their time of usefulness pass eventually, we just haven't gotten there yet. The problem, as I said, I would have to know much more about the fired employee, if this was his first offense against company policy then firing was over the top, but if he repeatedly challenged company policy then it's just the straw that broke the camel's back. In situations like this it is easy for people to just jump on a side without considering other factors, but having been a manager in the past I know, a good employee is not someone you let go easily, but a bad employee you look for good strong legal reasons to terminate as soon as possible (note strong and legal). Breaking company policy repeatedly is both a strong and legal reason to terminate the employment contract.

 

[paperview]

The question about a double standard is not if it happens but would the same result happen. I think if straights were harassed in the way you described the only thing that would be done is for a complaint to be lodge and perhaps an employer may fire them for disturbing the workplace but he would not fear being sued over it by the straights. That is my main complaint over it. Its the courts that are selectively defining sexual harssment to cover all things politically incorrect so now the workplace defacto enforces politically correctness.

Let's see if you can answer these questions:

1) What did the woman do or say that was inappropriate?

2) Did the man do or say anything inappropriate?

 

[manifold]

The question about a double standard is not if it happens but would the same result happen. I think if straights were harassed in the way you described the only thing that would be done is for a complaint to be lodge and perhaps an employer may fire them for disturbing the workplace but he would not fear being sued over it by the straights. That is my main complaint over it. Its the courts that are selectively defining sexual harssment to cover all things politically incorrect so now the workplace defacto enforces politically correctness.

Let's see if you can answer these questions:

1) What did the woman do or say that was inappropriate?

2) Did the man do or say anything inappropriate?

You're quite the optimist there aren't you?

You know, you can throw a cat out a second story window 50 times and you still won't teach it how to fly.

Just sayin...

 

[ihopehefails]

The question about a double standard is not if it happens but would the same result happen. I think if straights were harassed in the way you described the only thing that would be done is for a complaint to be lodge and perhaps an employer may fire them for disturbing the workplace but he would not fear being sued over it by the straights. That is my main complaint over it. Its the courts that are selectively defining sexual harssment to cover all things politically incorrect so now the workplace defacto enforces politically correctness.

Let's see if you can answer these questions:

1) What did the woman do or say that was inappropriate?

Nothing

2) Did the man do or say anything inappropriate?

He did not say anything other than expressing an opinion that was offensive to someone else and that is not illegal in this country but what if he said that her expressing her opinion was offensive to him and was sexual harassment since it was sexual in nature. Would have have been able to sue for sexual harassment under the current definition held by the courts?

She can bring a lawsuit based on someone else's offensive opinion but he can not? Thats why its a double standard.

 

[ihopehefails]

It's been my experience that there are a lot of evangelical Christians who feel it is there "duty" to "spread the word of God" by condemning other people and their private choices. They actually interpret the Bible as endorsing such behavior and they take pride in doing it.

In their minds they haven't done anything wrong and the fact that they suffer consequences for doing it just makes them more proud because they think they are "earning crowns in heaven" because they've been "persecuted" for their faith.

So this guy got busted - he suffered consequences. I guess now he can claim an extra crown in heaven or something.

He is actually using his right of free speech to spread the word of God just like the lesbian is doing when she is talking about her "wedding". They both deserve a chance to express their views no matter how offensive they are to other people but the fact that you used the term "busted" as if he committed a crime concerns me. It is not a crime to preach Christianity but I'm afraid your vurnacular reveals what we on the right believe about the left and that is you see christianity as a crime that gets "busted".

Do you see why I don't believe you should call yourselves liberal anymore?

I am a Christian

Do you see why I don't believe you should call yourself someone who doesn't jump to unwarrented conclusions?

That only proves that a certain kind of think can envelop everyone equally.

 

[bodecea]

The question about a double standard is not if it happens but would the same result happen. I think if straights were harassed in the way you described the only thing that would be done is for a complaint to be lodge and perhaps an employer may fire them for disturbing the workplace but he would not fear being sued over it by the straights. That is my main complaint over it. Its the courts that are selectively defining sexual harssment to cover all things politically incorrect so now the workplace defacto enforces politically correctness.

Let's see if you can answer these questions:

1) What did the woman do or say that was inappropriate?

Nothing

2) Did the man do or say anything inappropriate?

He did not say anything other than expressing an opinion that was offensive to someone else and that is not illegal in this country

Oh, was he arrested?

but what if he said that her expressing her opinion was offensive to him and was sexual harassment since it was sexual in nature.

Then, to be consistant, he should be threatening sexual harassment lawsuits against ANYONE mentioning their upcoming nuptials. ANYONE.

Would have have been able to sue for sexual harassment under the current definition held by the courts?

No.

She can bring a lawsuit based on someone else's offensive opinion but he can not? Thats why its a double standard.

How would YOU feel if someone is loudly espousing the opinion...to you...that your marriage is an invalid one. That your fiancee or wife is not a REAL fiancee or wife.

This guy's lucky he got off with just no job. If he did something like that to me, he might go away with no teeth too.