Support NeoGAF

[Mercury Fred]

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

But we're not talking about beliefs. We're talking about inflammatory tirades that single out a person for attack. People can be as racist, crazy, homophobic, ignorant, etc. as they wish. Just keep your fucking mouth closed about it.

 

[JGS]

I missed a lot on page 1

I guess I'm not fully following you, you do realize this was more than just a single conversation and built into harassment over days? It was not simply stating what her religious doctrine stated.

If your religious beliefs include bigoted ideas, then it's probably best to keep them to yourself anyway.

And pointing out bigotry in a religious belief does not make one prejudiced.

I agree 100% with the bold even when bigotry isn't te issue which is why some atheists should likewise keep their bigoted views of religion to themselves.

I am fine with what happened to Matthews. There's no issue there.

However, I have no problem with a person who asked for my opinion to be told my opinion. I would have a big problem with being fired after someone asked what I or my religion thought especially since religious belief is usually something publically known. You might as well fire them for being in a religion that condemns homosexuality which means you might as well ask their religion on a job application...which you can't.

To be clear again, I don't think that was the case here. I specifically stated I don't even know how an issue could be started given the details.

You're missing the point. Your religion doesn't compel you to answer the question in an offensive way, and if it DID, your CHOICE of religion would be entirely to blame for you losing your job, because it is incompatible with society and the workplace.

This still means WalMart is in the right, since it would apply the same standard to all employees, religious or otherwise.

You're missing the point. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Walmart can't fire me on my choice of religion only the ministering of it which is what happened in this case. There is not a requirement to sugarcoat and harassment doen't equate to rudeness.

Further, it should be assumed that someone who is devout/zealous/faithful in their beliefs would proudly give their answer when asked. Why wouldn't they? I don't know why a gay person would avoid a direct answer to a question like "Did you decide to be gay or were you born that way?"

I would expect any number of responses depending on their personality. The point is the question should never be asked in order to avoid the controversy.

No they aren't. Courts in US and UK have both ruled so when it came to "my religion tells me to be a bigot". What about the religious beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church? You going to claim they are equally valid to someone's right to be gay without being harrassed at work for it? Scum.

Uhh, yes they are and I dare a gay manager to fire someone on the basis of being a fundamentalist. It's not going to happen wiothout much, much, moola involved.

Your point about Westboro makes no sense. They without a doubt have equal rights to gay people. However, a member of that church cannot enforce their beliefs on co-workers anymore a gay person can enforce their orientation on someone. Neither of those scenarios is possible.

Ok, but... did this actually happen?

Of course, then again I'm harmless and everyone loves me (In non-gaf life) so I'm pretty approachable. I have coversations all the time about any number of things considered taboo. I'm smart enough to never start them or finish them though and I can't imagine a time outside of using slurs where I would report someone for it.

The people who work for me know they've never been slighted despite how horrible some of their opinions are . As mentioned already though, this does not work in a lot of scenarios so it's best to be quiet. Do as I say, not as I do.

 

[gutter_trash]

yelling at someone at the work place for 3 months period about weight, age, gender, orientation, beliefs, race = 3 months long of harassment

harassment is a fire-able offense in almost any job

 

[ZephyrFate]

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




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

Thankfully that last bullet point has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[AiTM]

But we're not talking about beliefs. We're talking about inflammatory tirades that single out a person for attack. People can be as racist, crazy, homophobic, ignorant, etc. as they wish. Just keep your fucking mouth closed about it.

I completely agree with you, but what about when someone asks you about said beliefs?

 

[Mercury Fred]

I completely agree with you, but what about when someone asks you about said beliefs?

Figure out how to have a little tact or say something like, "I'd rather not discuss that."

 

[mavs]

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.

Yeah, but I would be fired if I disrespected their beliefs. It's not that hard to just be positive or else keep the peace. TBH if a person can't control yourself when you hear about people's personal lives, whether it is appropriate to discuss those personal matters at work or not, that person will have issues that spill over to their performance anyway. If that control is a skill that can't be expected of anyone, it should still be a requirement to learn that skill to have a job.

 

[Zenith]

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

"I believe homosexuals are mentally deficient and will be tortured for eternity in hell for it."

Well who could see that as an insult?

 

[_Bro]

orientation leader was a member of the tea party who paused the video tape on unions and explained them to us. it was about 15 minutes of her telling us why would get fired for joining a union and how they're stupid.

she was also really mean to this old lady until recognized her from one of the tea party meetings.

also put her breast, or tummy roll, on my shoulder while i was doing computer training. awkward

everybody should have a I Work At Walmart experience.

 

[Curufinwe]

Dude... that's a pretty fucked up story.

 

[JayDubya]

"Court says Walmart does have the right to fire employee over gay comments"

Well yeah.

Walmart "has the right" to fire the other employee, too.

I'm not sure anyone could really contend that the employee's conduct was work-appropriate, but they'd have the right to fire an at-will employee regardless of circumstance. They always have that right; this just gave them a reason.

This was a case?

 

[JGS]

Yeah, but I would be fired if I disrespected their beliefs. It's not that hard to just be positive or else keep the peace. TBH if a person can't control yourself when you hear about people's personal lives, whether it is appropriate to discuss those personal matters at work or not, that person will have issues that spill over to their performance anyway. If that control is a skill that can't be expected of anyone, it should still be a requirement to learn that skill to have a job.

I disagree. nearly every single individual in the workplace has something they can be offended about. If one person brings up a subject that is known to be controversial such as religion's view of sexual orientation, it should not default to the person who has problems with it to lose their job when the other person clearly has an issue with the religious person.

It is a bogus view that the gay person errs on the side of tolerance when they are clearly intolerant of religious belief that disagrees with their lifestyle as much as the religious person is intolerant of theirs. That's irrelevant though as it is not harassment when it is invited, answered and done with in the same conversation.

This is not the case with this case. I'm just going to put that there each time.

 

[ZephyrFate]

I disagree. nearly every single individual in the workplace has something they can be offended about. If one person brings up a subject that is known to be controversial such as religion's view of sexual orientation, it should not default to the person who has problems with it to lose their job when the other person clearly has an issue with the religious person.

It is a bogus view that the gay person errs on the side of tolerance when they are clearly intolerant of religious belief that disagrees with their lifestyle as much as the religious person is intolerant of theirs. That's irrelevant though as it is not harassment when it is invited, answered and done with in the same conversation.

This is not the case with this case. I'm just going to put that there each time.

So since it isn't, why do you keep bringing up tangentially related scenarios? It's an argument for the sake of having one.

 

[Devolution]

So since it isn't, why do you keep bringing up tangentially related scenarios? It's an argument for the sake of having one.

Because we're being intolerant of religious people when they're being bigots.

We need to start being tolerant of intolerance.

Spoiler

lol

 

[ZephyrFate]

Well, obviously. It's him and that Saytamdas guy that must remind us to defend privileged people.

 

[Phoenix]

Weird how so many missed the fact that the only reason Walmart got off was because they argued that she was harassing an employee (an area where they can fire at-will for any reason). The whole discussion about the gay comment is almost irrelevant to the case according to the way they argued it.

 

[kehs]

Because we're being intolerant of religious people when they're being bigots.

We need to start being tolerant of intolerance.

Spoiler

lol

One could also aim for something beyond hypocrisy.

 

[ZephyrFate]

One could also aim for something beyond hypocrisy.

Ah, of course, that's totally at play here.

 

[Blair]

I disagree. nearly every single individual in the workplace has something they can be offended about. If one person brings up a subject that is known to be controversial such as religion's view of sexual orientation, it should not default to the person who has problems with it to lose their job when the other person clearly has an issue with the religious person.

It is a bogus view that the gay person errs on the side of tolerance when they are clearly intolerant of religious belief that disagrees with their lifestyle as much as the religious person is intolerant of theirs. That's irrelevant though as it is not harassment when it is invited, answered and done with in the same conversation.

This is not the case with this case. I'm just going to put that there each time.

poor bigots always being picked on by those gays

 

[Qwomo]

I disagree. nearly every single individual in the workplace has something they can be offended about. If one person brings up a subject that is known to be controversial such as religion's view of sexual orientation, it should not default to the person who has problems with it to lose their job when the other person clearly has an issue with the religious person.

It is a bogus view that the gay person errs on the side of tolerance when they are clearly intolerant of religious belief that disagrees with their lifestyle as much as the religious person is intolerant of theirs. That's irrelevant though as it is not harassment when it is invited, answered and done with in the same conversation.

This is not the case with this case. I'm just going to put that there each time.

This is the most hilariously contrived thing I have ever read.

Also lol "lifestyle"

 

[mavs]

It is a bogus view that the gay person errs on the side of tolerance when they are clearly intolerant of religious belief that disagrees with their lifestyle as much as the religious person is intolerant of theirs. That's irrelevant though as it is not harassment when it is invited, answered and done with in the same conversation.

It very well could be, actually. If someone persistently asks about a co-worker's religious beliefs, and the co-worker says they don't want to talk about it, it's not appropriate, you're making me uncomfortable then continuing to ask about it will eventually cross a line. But if the questions eventually provoke a response like "go to hell, you're mentally deficient" then that response is definitely not acceptable. It's not harassment, but it could easily be grounds for termination even if it was invited.

 

[WickedAngel]

I disagree. nearly every single individual in the workplace has something they can be offended about. If one person brings up a subject that is known to be controversial such as religion's view of sexual orientation, it should not default to the person who has problems with it to lose their job when the other person clearly has an issue with the religious person.

It is a bogus view that the gay person errs on the side of tolerance when they are clearly intolerant of religious belief that disagrees with their lifestyle as much as the religious person is intolerant of theirs. That's irrelevant though as it is not harassment when it is invited, answered and done with in the same conversation.

This is not the case with this case. I'm just going to put that there each time.

Why do you continue to say this when it demonstrably false? The fact that someone asked you a question can't be construed as license to go on a bigoted, verbally abusive tirade.

Civility is the issue here, not tolerance. Even if tolerance were the issue, the assertion that gay people are questionable and intolerant simply by virtue of existing is laughable. Gay people aren't the ones who are actively attempting to suppress the lifestyles of Christians. If a gay couple gets married/adopts children/has the audacity to show affection in public, nothing has changed in the lives of those who call themselves religious.

Are scientists being intolerant of Young Earth Creationism when they say that the planet is older than 10,000 years old?

 

[Phoenix]

It very well could be, actually. If someone persistently asks about a co-worker's religious beliefs, and the co-worker says they don't want to talk about it, it's not appropriate, you're making me uncomfortable then continuing to ask about it will eventually cross a line. But if the questions eventually provoke a response like "go to hell, you're mentally deficient" then that response is definitely not acceptable. It's not harassment, but it could easily be grounds for termination even if it was invited.

In that particular situation the co-worker is the one being harassed and if pushed to answer - they would actually be protected under the law.

 

[Devolution]

One could also aim for something beyond hypocrisy.

haha. ok.

Being intolerant of intolerance makes me a hypocrite. I should totally accept people being bigoted assholes because that's who they are, oh wait they choose to be bigoted shitstains.

Nice try.

 

[WickedAngel]

haha. ok.

Being intolerant of intolerance makes me a hypocrite. I should totally accept people being bigoted assholes because that's who they are, oh wait they choose to be bigoted shitstains.

Nice try.

The tone of that post sounds pretty intolerant as it pertains to the views of intolerant people. Just how intolerant are you?

 

[Devolution]

The tone of that post sounds pretty intolerant as it pertains to the views of intolerant people. Just how intolerant are you?

We have to go deeper.

Intolerantception.

 

[loosus]

I think Wal-Mart should be able to fire this person for their inflammatory comments and fire the lesbian for being lesbian -- guess that makes me doubly bad!

I think the government should stay out of purely social issues, period.

 

[Blair]

the correct response to bigotry -

 

[JGS]

It very well could be, actually. If someone persistently asks about a co-worker's religious beliefs, and the co-worker says they don't want to talk about it, it's not appropriate, you're making me uncomfortable then continuing to ask about it will eventually cross a line. But if the questions eventually provoke a response like "go to hell, you're mentally deficient" then that response is definitely not acceptable. It's not harassment, but it could easily be grounds for termination even if it was invited.

I see the point, but again I don't have an expectation of someone refraining from sharing their beliefs, nor do most companies since they want you to refrain from both starting the conversation and continuing it.

 

[FleckSplat]

Matthews, an Apostolic Christian, sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for race and religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming she was fired because of her religious beliefs and not for violating company policy.

I read this as apoplectic.

 

[KevinCow]

Walmart does something right? I don't understand.

 

[mavs]

I see the point, but again I don't have an expectation of someone refraining from sharing their beliefs, nor do most companies since they want you to refrain from both starting the conversation and continuing it.

If you are expected to refrain from continuing the conversation then you are expected to refrain from sharing your beliefs, if those beliefs are put offensively. The main thing is to just say positive things, and if you think ill of someone for any reason including your religious beliefs then keep it to yourself.

Religion isn't a special reason to have a low opinion of someone, if you don't like someone's body or accent or whatever then the same rules apply.

Edit: I'm not saying there's no way to talk about religion without offending someone. Even on subjects like sexuality and divorce it is possible to word your responses so that you stay in the clear. It's dangerous though, I'd sooner pick up spiders and pet strange dogs then have a serious conversation like that at work.

 

[Dragon]

There's a difference between being religious and saying that you don't agree with what a group of people believe, as bigoted as it is, rather than saying they're going to go to hell.

 

[JGS]

Why do you continue to say this when it demonstrably false? The fact that someone asked you a question can't be construed as license to go on a bigoted, verbally abusive tirade.

Where did I say that it did? I said it should be expected when you ask a stupid question such as "Derp, what does your fundamentalist beliefs teach you about homosexuality?" That question can certainly lead to harassment, but not in one sitting unless you're thin skinned.

It should be expected that someone who is asked their religious views should give them meaning that a person who thinks homosexuality is a sin should say so. It sure beats lying and there's no reason for them to remain silent anymore than it's reasonable for a gay person to remain silent about heir orientation. Although, I think it's rude to insult in the answer, say gay people are going to Hell when it's their religious teaching does not rise to an insult. If it does, you shouldn't have taken the chance by asking.

Civility is the issue here, not tolerance. Even if tolerance were the issue, the assertion that gay people are questionable and intolerant simply by virtue of existing is laughable. Gay people aren't the ones who are actively attempting to suppress the lifestyles of Christians. If a gay couple gets married/adopts children/has the audacity to show affection in public, nothing has changed in the lives of those who call themselves religious.

Ugh, you are flat out making stuff up for exageration purposes. That would be laughable if I said that. You are indeed intolerant if you refuse to respect the view that some religious people have who firmly believe that gay sex is nasty and wrong. It's no more your concern than a person's homosexuality is theirs.

There's no reason for a fundamentalist to change their view of homosexuality just because you don't like it. In fact, they can't. Stop trying especially if it's by equal condemnation. Since that doesn't work for them, why do you think it would work for the other side? Just be glad there are more than enough people who are fine with it and pray you don't work with someone like Matthews. But also, don't bring it up until it's brought up.

Btw, the way, civility doesn't have anything to do with it. You don't need civility at all. That's at the height of debate which means it's often tough to achieve.

There's a difference between being religious and saying that you don't agree with what a group of people believe, as bigoted as it is, rather than saying they're going to go to hell.

It's a belief. It's one and the same. If they don't agree with your lifestyle that means you are going to Hell. So if you're going to be offended, you need to be offended whole hog imo.

But if it actually makes people feel better to hear that they don't agree with the views rather than the Hellfire part, then maybe that will help Matthews in her next endeavor.

 

[Qwomo]

Ugh, you are flat out making stuff up for exageration purposes. That would be laughable if I said that. You are indeed intolerant if you refuse to respect the view that some religious people have who firmly believe that gay sex is nasty and wrong. It's no more your concern than a person's homosexuality is theirs.

To put it nicely: what the fuck is this bullshit?

Of course it's my concern. And of course I won't respect bigoted ignorance, no matter where that bigoted ignorance comes from.

 

[JGS]

If you are expected to refrain from continuing the conversation then you are expected to refrain from sharing your beliefs, if those beliefs are put offensively. The main thing is to just say positive things, and if you think ill of someone for any reason including your religious beliefs then keep it to yourself.

Religion isn't a special reason to have a low opinion of someone, if you don't like someone's body or accent or whatever then the same rules apply.

Edit: I'm not saying there's no way to talk about religion without offending someone. Even on subjects like sexuality and divorce it is possible to word your responses so that you stay in the clear. It's dangerous though, I'd sooner pick up spiders and pet strange dogs then have a serious conversation like that at work.

Well, that's not the reason to refrain from the conversation. The reason has to do with potential. It's why a gay person should also refrain from discussing their lifestyle. Actually heterosexuals need to as well. It's not to stop talking about something that is definitely offensive, because to many people denouncing homosexuality isn't offensive in the slightest and denouncing a fundamental belief is. Again, this is the reason neither should be discussed as both are grounds for dismissal [eventually].

I agree about the religion not being an out, but they are allowed equal rights to an opinion. That's all their answer is when asked.

I personally have no time to play word games with my opinions. If you ask anything about my religious beliefs, I'm telling because it reflects on the religion which I'm interested in promoting for those interested (In real life, not on gaf so don't worry). There's no reason to think I would get fired over that & I'm willing to take my chances in any event.

To put it nicely: what the fuck is this bullshit?

Of course it's my concern. And of course I won't respect bigoted ignorance, no matter where that bigoted ignorance comes from.

Good, you agree with me except I'm not sure why their view of homosexuality concerns you.

 

[mavs]

Well, that's not the reason to refrain from the conversation. The reason has to do with potential. It's why a gay person should also refrain from discussing their lifestyle. Actually heterosexuals need to as well. It's not to stop talking about something that is definitely offensive, because to many people denouncing homosexuality isn't offensive in the slightest and denouncing a fundamental belief is. Again, this is the reason neither should be discussed as both are grounds for dismissal [eventually].

I agree about the religion not being an out, but they are allowed equal rights to an opinion. That's all their answer is when asked.

Everyone can have all opinions, but not all opinions are allowed to be shared. Everywhere I've worked, positive statements are (mostly) given a pass and negative opinions always get you in trouble. So, denouncing anything is probably going on the bad side of whoever holds your job in their hands.

I personally have no time to play word games with my opinions. If you ask anything about my religious beliefs, I'm telling because it reflects on the religion which I'm interested in promoting for those interested (In real life, not on gaf so don't worry). There's no reason to think I would get fired over that & I'm willing to take my chances in any event.

If you know you're not going to be fired then by all means, go buck wild. I think the main point here is that if you don't know how far you can go, you really don't want to test the waters at all.

If someone asked my view on religion I would decline to answer for the same reason I wouldn't answer someone if they asked if I thought they were too fat. In my case, I know it would be bad to say anything.

 

[btkadams]

i really don't like when people equate having a certain religious belief with being a homosexual.

 

[ZephyrFate]

There is nothing similar between being religious (a choice) and being homosexual (not a choice).

Also, it's not a lifestyle. Try again, JGS.

 

[TGateKeeper]

Why would a homosexual have a discussion with a Christian about homosexual life style? if you ask someone their opinion you have no business getting offended. It would be different if this woman just went around everyday telling the lesbian she is going to hell but after reading the case file she was having a discussion.

 

[ZephyrFate]

Why would a homosexual have a discussion with a Christian about homosexual life style? if you ask someone their opinion you have no business getting offended. It would be different if this woman just went around everyday telling the lesbian she is going to hell but after reading the case file she was having a discussion.

There's a big difference between expressing beliefs and being tactful about it. In one case, you have this bitch who was totally in the wrong, and in the other you have politeness.

 

[Gaborn]

Why would a homosexual have a discussion with a Christian about homosexual life style? if you ask someone their opinion you have no business getting offended. It would be different if this woman just went around everyday telling the lesbian she is going to hell but after reading the case file she was having a discussion.

It's amazing how resilient this terminology is despite being utterly meaningless.

 

[ZephyrFate]

Why would a homosexual have a discussion with a Christian about homosexual life style? if you ask someone their opinion you have no business getting offended. It would be different if this woman just went around everyday telling the lesbian she is going to hell but after reading the case file she was having a discussion.

It's not a lifestyle.

 

[kehs]

It's amazing how resilient this terminology is despite being utterly meaningless.

So the "gay community" doesn't actually represent anything then?

 

[TGateKeeper]

It's not a lifestyle.

its is for many. imo there is a small percentage of real homosexuals and a very large percentage of people just living a life style and I know the gay defense force will jump on me but its my opinion.

 

[WickedAngel]

its is for many. imo there is a small percentage of real homosexuals and a very large percentage of people just living a life style and I know the gay defense force will jump on me but its my opinion.

An opinion based on...what?

What is a "real homosexual"?

 

[The Technomancer]

its is for many. imo there is a small percentage of real homosexuals and a very large percentage of people just living a life style and I know the gay defense force will jump on me but its my opinion.

Ohshi-

 

[Qwomo]

its is for many. imo there is a small percentage of real homosexuals and a very large percentage of people just living a life style and I know the gay defense force will jump on me but its my opinion.

hahahaha

so much of this post is delicious

goodbye, sweet prince

 

[Gaborn]

So the "gay community" doesn't actually represent anything then?

Sure it does. People attracted to members of their own sex. That doesn't constitute a "lifestyle" any more than it would be relevant to discuss a "black lifestyle" or a "I hate onions" lifestyle. Gays comprise all economic strata and all occupations, we have people of every race, in every country, following every religious belief, of every political ideology imaginable.

its is for many. imo there is a small percentage of real homosexuals and a very large percentage of people just living a life style and I know the gay defense force will jump on me but its my opinion.

Can you define what you mean by "real homosexual" and "lifestyle" homosexual? What are the distinguishing features of each?

 

[Devolution]

its is for many. imo there is a small percentage of real homosexuals and a very large percentage of people just living a life style and I know the gay defense force will jump on me but its my opinion.

Your opinion is bigoted, like the woman who got fired.