Support NeoGAF

[btkadams]

Its just questionable to me someone losing their means of survival by engaging with coworkers on a conversation, and expressing thier opinion. If the situation was reveresed and a gay worker was fired for expressing thier opinion that homosexuality was normal, it would be still be just as wrong.

The article doesn't describe alot of what took place, just seems that she was yelling and harassing. I get someone being fired for harassing a coworker or being overly aggressive. But if she just expressed her opinion, and they BOTH started to fight about it, and she the only one fired, that would be fucked up to me. I get people should be adults and be respectful, but anyone who was worked around coworkers you know conversations sometimes come up, and I don't think anyone should be fired for expressing how they feel on a topic.


AGAIN, I get that's not why she was fired, she was fired for harassment, which is totally justifiable if that is indeed the case.

well at least you're admitting that you're making up something completely unrelated to this thread and the case with walmart.

also, a lesbian arguing that they are personally worthy of being alive is not the same as the bigot saying the lesbian doesn't deserve to live. your whole "reversal" situation makes no sense and neither does the "both fighting" argument. hating and defending are not the same thing.

 

[nestea]

This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because employees of a company don't have the freedom to say what they want while at work in said company. The case was about freedom of religion, and Walmart didn't fire the woman because of her religion. They fired her because of the comments that she made to another employee while on break in the building.

 

[Soulscribe]

It's not what i said. You just don't understand what sodomy is.

An heterosexual couple can committ sodomy (which is not sex, even if you try to say it is because you are changing the very definition of the word). You can have anal/oral "sex", chinese dragon (don't ask, probably not known in other countries (most disgusting thing ever)), or other types of mutual masturbation and satisfaction through inflicting (or receiving) pain.

You don't think that's a silly reason to go to hell? lol. It's not hurting anybody, and it feels [really] good, so unless you or someone else is in grave danger, why do you give a fuck?

Sigh. I could really go for some sodomy right now.

 

[AiTM]

well at least you're admitting that you're making up something completely unrelated to this thread and the case with walmart.

also, a lesbian arguing that they are personally worthy of being alive is not the same as the bigot saying the lesbian doesn't deserve to live. your whole "reversal" situation makes no sense and neither does the "both fighting" argument. hating and defending are not the same thing.

I wasn't just making something up. I was just pointing out where I think the line is being acceptable to fire someone. If they are harassing, hateful, and overly aggressive against another employee then I believe it to be justifiable. If they are having a conversation and someone else interjects, and they give their opinion, its not appropriate to fire them. That is all...Wrong or right I don't think anyone should be fired from their job for their personal opinions that I don't like or agree with, how they share them is a different story. I don't know why this is so controversial.

And, like you said, I was saying all along that in this case, it is acceptable because of the way she went about expressing her opinion.

 

[Devolution]

If they are having a conversation and someone else interjects, and they give their opinion, its not appropriate to fire them. That is all...Wrong or right I don't think anyone should be fired from their job for their personal opinions that I don't like or agree with, how they share them is a different story. I don't know why this is so controversial.

And, like you said, I was saying all along that in this case it too be acceptable because of the way she went about expressing her opinion.

Pretty sure certain opinions like those that enforce/reflect bigotry, racism or sexism create hostile working environments that employers don't want to deal with.

 

[AiTM]

Pretty sure certain opinions like those that enforce bigotry, racism or sexism create hostile working environments that employers don't want to deal with.

So don't ask what someone believes unless you can handle an answer.

 

[ZephyrFate]

I wasn't just making something up. I was just pointing out where I think the line is being acceptable to fire someone. If they are harassing, hateful, and overly aggressive against another employee then I believe it to be justifiable. If they are having a conversation and someone else interjects, and they give their opinion, its not appropriate to fire them. That is all...Wrong or right I don't think anyone should be fired from their job for their personal opinions that I don't like or agree with, how they share them is a different story. I don't know why this is so controversial.

And, like you said, I was saying all along that in this case, it is acceptable because of the way she went about expressing her opinion.

If a topic of discussion causes a hostile work environment, which this particular person did, then they deserve to get fired.

 

[levious]

So don't ask what someone believes unless you can handle an answer.

no one should have to "handle" something bigoted/offensive/etc in the workplace, it's not the same as everyday life.

 

[Grimmy]

It's not what i said. You just don't understand what sodomy is.

Triangles can have right angles too! Not just squares!

 

[Salmonax]

So don't ask what someone believes unless you can handle an answer.

Anyone with half a brain knows not to discuss anything even vaguely controversial or excessively personal at work. It's common sense, and it's mandated by most HR departments to avoid hostile work environments and associated lawsuits.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Race reasons?

Tanisha Matthews

 

[The Faceless Master]

It's not what i said. You just don't understand what sodomy is.

An heterosexual couple can committ sodomy (which is not sex, even if you try to say it is because you are changing the very definition of the word). You can have anal/oral "sex", chinese dragon (don't ask, probably not known in other countries (most disgusting thing ever)), or other types of mutual masturbation and satisfaction through inflicting (or receiving) pain.

is it Sodomy and still a sin if it's forced?

like say someone (male, female, doesn't matter) gets anally raped and the murdered before they can repent, do the go to hell?

 

[Timber]

I'm assuming the lady saw her smooching her girlfriend

Yeah I bet some serious cunnilingus was being performed right in aisle 5 and the lady gently reminded the perps of workplace ethics and propriety. And now she's fired in the name of progress and tolerance? Talk about backward...

 

[Seraphinianus]

is it Sodomy and still a sin if it's forced?

like say someone (male, female, doesn't matter) gets anally raped and the murdered before they can repent, do the go to hell?

the system is pretty arbitrary like that. Kafka is a better guide to how to stay in God's favor than the Bible, really.

 

[astroturfing]

i personally wouldn't even hire anyone who believes people can end up in eternal torture after death. pure madness really.

too bad i'm dirt poor and it's more likely that i will be fired from some future job because i DON'T believe in hell. lol.

 

[hellclerk]

This doesn't make them any less evil >:|

 

[JGS]

no one should have to "handle" something bigoted/offensive/etc in the workplace, it's not the same as everyday life.

If you're asking for it, it's fair game and both workers should cease and desist.

I'm also assuming that one's religious beliefs can't be questioned at all either- even if the co-workers are conversing about it.

It really boils down to only talking about what needs to be restocked on aisle 5.

Yeah I bet some serious cunnilingus was being performed right in aisle 5 and the lady gently reminded the perps of workplace ethics and propriety. And now she's fired in the name of progress and tolerance? Talk about backward...

That's some fine editing skills you got there :/.

Spoiler

Hey, we both said aisle 5!. Spooky

 

[ZephyrFate]

If you're asking for it, it's fair game and both workers should cease and desist.

I'm also assuming that one's religious beliefs can't be questioned at all either- even if the co-workers are conversing about it.

It really boils down to only talking about what needs to be restocked on aisle 5.

im pretty sure the lesbians involved in this situation were not 'asking' for the douchebag's comments

 

[Gaborn]

If you're asking for it, it's fair game and both workers should cease and desist.

I'm also assuming that one's religious beliefs can't be questioned at all either- even if the co-workers are conversing about it.

It really boils down to only talking about what needs to be restocked on aisle 5.

Not at all. It's really about tone.

For example: "What do you think about gays?"

"I don't really agree with it. It's against my religion. I think it's sinful."

vs. "What do you think about gays?"

"They will burn in hell for their abusive nature against the will of God, but I don't blame them entirely for their sinful nature. They're clearly mentally ill and should probably be treated by mental health professionals. Anyone who willfully engages in sodomy though should be killed according to the Bible."

 

[WickedAngel]

Why is it that a great deal of people can't be religious without wearing it on their fucking sleeve? Is it really that hard to keep to yourself?

 

[kehs]

Why is it that a great deal of people can't be religious without wearing it on their fucking sleeve? Is it really that hard to keep to yourself?

Why should they have to?

 

[From The Dust]

This doesn't make them any less evil >:|

at their prices, they can't possibly be evil!

 

[Zenith]

Why should they have to?

You never really clarified what you meant by your post:

Your title is wrong.

And support of that assertion is wrong.

 

[WickedAngel]

Why should they have to?

Because being tactful and respecting the fact that other people believe different things than you is the mark of a decent human being?

Even if it wasn't, the workplace isn't the appropriate place to talk about such things.

 

[Zoe]

Why is it that a great deal of people can't be religious without wearing it on their fucking sleeve? Is it really that hard to keep to yourself?

Do you object if people have to (and choose to) wear certain things due to their religion?

 

[kehs]

You never really clarified what you meant by your post:

Didn't think I had to. The employee was fired for being a douchebag and misbehaving, not for her beliefs.

The tittle implies the latter, and anyone supporting the latter is wrong.

Because being tactful and respecting the fact that other people believe different things than you is the mark of a decent human being?

Even if it wasn't, the workplace isn't the appropriate place to talk about such things.

Being respectful and wearing your beliefs on your sleeve can coexist.

 

[WickedAngel]

Do you object if people have to (and choose to) wear certain things due to their religion?

No.

Being respectful and wearing your beliefs on your sleeve can coexist.

Rarely. People who are devout enough to constantly speak about their religion in casual conversation rarely exhibit the ability to face opposing viewpoints without becoming standoffish/argumentative.

 

[Zoe]

No.

Is that not wearing religion on your sleeve?

 

[ZephyrFate]

Didn't think I had to. The employee was fired for being a douchebag and misbehaving, not for her beliefs.

The tittle implies the latter, and anyone supporting the latter is wrong.



Being respectful and wearing your beliefs on your sleeve can coexist.

If your beliefs don't piss other people off, sure. But most religious beliefs-on-the-sleeves are antagonistic.

 

[JGS]

im pretty sure the lesbians involved in this situation were not 'asking' for the douchebag's comments

Good Lord. Try reading what was said and then commenting. Otherwise you are merely quoting a post that has nothing to do with what you're saying unless you are so clueless of religious extremism that you actually expected a positive outcome from asking a fundamentalist their opinion on homosexuality.

Not at all. It's really about tone.

For example: "What do you think about gays?"

"I don't really agree with it. It's against my religion. I think it's sinful."

vs. "What do you think about gays?"

"They will burn in hell for their abusive nature against the will of God, but I don't blame them entirely for their sinful nature. They're clearly mentally ill and should probably be treated by mental health professionals. Anyone who willfully engages in sodomy though should be killed according to the Bible."

Tone does not matter. It makes the wrongful assumption that everyone is cordial. For example, the tone in a lot of this thread has been harsh based merely on assumption without reading. Ones who engage in the conversation take all of this in stride.

If one believes that's what happens to homosexuals, then the two answers you give are exactly the same. In other words, the person could be equally offended by the thought their lifestyle is a sin.

I'm not sure why a person asking another person about a matter that would obviously be potentially offensive would actually be offended by the answer regardless of tone. Don't ask about views regarding homosexuality or religion and the problem is solved by not being started.

 

[WickedAngel]

Is that not wearing religion on your sleeve?

Pretending that you've never heard a common figure of speech is a good way to get ignored.

 

[Gaborn]

Didn't think I had to. The employee was fired for being a douchebag and misbehaving, not for her beliefs.

The tittle implies the latter, and anyone supporting the latter is wrong.

I don't think it implies that at all, it says what happened. Sure, you can think it's referring to the content of the comments rather than the tone that she apparently adopted in expressing her viewpoint but that doesn't make the title inaccurate. It's just vague enough to pique interest.

 

[kehs]

I don't think it implies that at all, it says what happened. Sure, you can think it's referring to the content of the comments rather than the tone that she apparently adopted in expressing her viewpoint but that doesn't make the title inaccurate. It's just vague enough to pique interest.

Which is why you worded it like that.

Correct title should have been "Court says Walmart does have the right to fire employee over misbehaviour"

But that would have only gotten four posts, right?

If your beliefs don't piss other people off, sure. But most religious beliefs-on-the-sleeves are antagonistic.

"People shouldn't outwardly express themselves.......if I don't like it."

 

[Threi]

Why is it that a great deal of people can't be religious without wearing it on their fucking sleeve? Is it really that hard to keep to yourself?

A great deal of people have stupid personality traits.

And those traits aren't only relegated to people who have religious beliefs.

 

[Zenith]

The tittle implies the latter, and anyone supporting the latter is wrong.

Anyone supporting the stance that being subjected to a homophobic tirade should not be acceptable in the workplace is wrong? Wow.

 

[Gaborn]

Which is why you worded it like that.

Correct title should have been "Court says Walmart does have the right to fire employee over misbehaviour"

But that would have only gotten four posts, right?

I'm not sure about "correct" but that would have been an accurate title as well, yes. There is nothing inaccurate about my title, it is open to interpretation on first read though, yes. And then you read the article and you find out what it's about.

 

[Zoe]

Pretending that you've never heard a common figure of speech is a good way to get ignored.

They're broadcasting their religion to everyone around them without ever having to say a word. That's more intrusive than someone you may never even speak to.

 

[kehs]

Anyone supporting the stance that being subjected to a homophobic tirade should not be acceptable in the workplace is wrong? Wow.

Anyone supporting firing someone over their beliefs is wrong.

Half of the post in this thread can be summarized into "Yeah! She deserves to get fired for being a religious bigot!"

 

[WickedAngel]

Anyone supporting firing someone over their beliefs is wrong.

You can believe in the adult Santa Clause to your heart's content; that doesn't give you the right to disrespectfully spout off to your coworkers.

I believe my boss is an asshole but I don't get to announce it openly.

 

[Korey]

Anyone supporting firing someone over their beliefs is wrong.

Half of the post in this thread can be summarized into "Yeah! She deserves to get fired for being a religious bigot!"

You are entitled to your bigoted beliefs. Doesn't mean you're entitled to say it out loud at the workplace.

 

[mavs]

I'm also assuming that one's religious beliefs can't be questioned at all either- even if the co-workers are conversing about it.

When my co-workers give me booklets about prayer and praising god, do I tell them I think their religion has no rational basis? I don't even say anything when they talk about celebrities having affairs and living in sin. Anyway, you should like the people you work with, or at least pretend to.

Of course, where I work people have been fired for yelling at each other. And we're unionized!

 

[KibblesBits]

Anyone supporting firing someone over their beliefs is wrong.

Half of the post in this thread can be summarized into "Yeah! She deserves to get fired for being a religious bigot!"

I really find it amazing that there are individuals who feel that this person's behavior was not warranting a firing. If she was rational, logical or reasonable about her faith the firing would not have happened. The situation as I gather escalated and could be characterized as a ranting, continual, crazy, shouting spectacle making someone feel less than human.

Workplace disagreements are common and to be expected. Shouting fests, demeaning language and intimidation are not acceptable. Even if an opinion is asked it does not give liberty to go wild.

Part of working with others is remaining civil. If you cannot do so you should remove yourself and reevaluate the situation or be removed.

 

[Zenith]

Anyone supporting firing someone over their beliefs is wrong.

So you'd be ok with someone who espoused racist beliefs not being fired?

 

[Gaborn]

So you'd be ok with someone who espoused racist beliefs not being fired?

Perfect example, does Copernicus think this employee deserved to be fired? Or was the store wrong in firing them?

 

[JGS]

When my co-workers give me booklets about prayer and praising god, do I tell them I think their religion has no rational basis? I don't even say anything when they talk about celebrities having affairs and living in sin. Anyway, you should like the people you work with, or at least pretend to.

That's because you are reasonable. It doesn't take reasonableness to be offended though. So the religious folk should refrain from doing something that is clearly violating HR policy in most places.

I agree that friendliness is key, but it will never happen when people are also on edge about what to say. I din't get the vibe that this Walmart crew were friendly & Matthews was just preaching. However, being friends with co-workers requires a whole lot of putting up with each other. They will inevitably say something that will offend because they think they can.

 

[kehs]

I really find it amazing that there are individuals who feel that this person's behavior was not warranting a firing. If she was rational, logical or reasonable about her faith the firing would not have happened. The situation as I gather escalated and could be characterized as a ranting, continual, crazy, shouting spectacle making someone feel less than human.

Workplace disagreements are common and to be expected. Shouting fests, demeaning language and intimidation are not acceptable. Even if an opinion is asked it does not give liberty to go wild.

Part of working with others is remaining civil. If you cannot do so you should remove yourself and reevaluate the situation or be removed.

The manner in which she reacted clearly, and deservedly warrants removal from the workplace. I've said nothing that would indicate otherwise.

Perfect example, does Copernicus think this employee deserved to be fired? Or was the store wrong in firing them?

An employee gravely disrespecting a customer with an insult. Clearly they should be fired.

So you'd be ok with someone who espoused racist beliefs not being fired?

That would depend on the context.

Solely firing a an employee because of their ideals/beliefs, is something I will be never get behind.

 

[Ettie]

Alright.

Now if they could just get away with firing the poor employees, we'd be on our collective way.

 

[Zenith]

Simply stating those beliefs is an insult to both the customers and coworkers. We shouldn't humour or tolerate such vile views, it only encourages them. I'm glad in the UK you can be fired for being a BNP member.

Spoiler

now to see if anyone plays the debunked "but you should tolerate the intolerant" argument

 

[gutter_trash]

Harassment is Harassment whatever your religion is; no use going all Taliban like and stuff at a Wal-Mart

 

[kehs]

Simply stating those beliefs is an insult to both the customers and coworkers.

That's not how insults work. You can be insulted by it, but that doesn't automatically make the statement an insult.