bbauska wrote:http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/01/pasadena-public-health-director-placed-on-leave-for-reportedly-making-anti-gay-anti-catholic-remarks/

Public outcry on this one too?

I guess I must have missed it. The PASTOR is chastising schools for giving special treatment. Perhaps preaching equality is not what is acceptable anymore.

Why capitalize 'pastor'? Does it really matter whether he delivered his bigotry as part of a sermon or somewhere else? I do wonder what the anti-Catholic statements were though, and whether you would care to defend those as well.

However, he's not actually been sacked - he's suspended pending an investigation.

bbauska wrote:http://www.gamespot.com/articles/community-manager-fired-after-controversial-tweets-about-embattled-nba-owner-donald-sterling/1100-6419367/

Another CEO fired. Oh wait... It was a game developer. This game developer had the audacity to say that Sterling has a right to be a bigot in his own home.

Is that offensive these days?

"Community Manager", actually, not a game developer. A CM manages (and often is the public face of) online boards.

I have already expressed reservations about how Sterling's remarks surfaced, but a phone call is not contained within a single home (or why bother with a phone?) - he was on the line to someone else.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/01/pasadena-public-health-director-placed-on-leave-for-reportedly-making-anti-gay-anti-catholic-remarks/

Public outcry on this one too?

I guess I must have missed it. The PASTOR is chastising schools for giving special treatment. Perhaps preaching equality is not what is acceptable anymore.

Why capitalize 'pastor'? Does it really matter whether he delivered his bigotry as part of a sermon or somewhere else? I do wonder what the anti-Catholic statements were though, and whether you would care to defend those as well.

However, he's not actually been sacked - he's suspended pending an investigation.

I capitalized pastor because I wanted to stress the church position being separate from the State. The pastor did not say anything about gays. He chastised the schools for special treatment.

Is it bigotry to say that schools should treat everyone the same?

bbauska wrote:http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/EASTSIDE-CATHOLIC-PRESIDENT-RESIGNS-br-Over-backlash-in-firing-of-gay-principal-1612082

Apparently you cannot fire someone for having values contrary to the Catholic School the gay Vice principal was at without causing an uproar.

Does this meet the criteria for double standard yet?

Uproar? ha ha. Because there was no uproar over Eich, you guys have been totally silent and accepting about it!!

Two things - you seem to be conflating "can" and "must" when it comes to organisations firing people who contravene 'values' (and the decision is for that organisation to make, not you!). Even if every situation you bring up can lead to a firing, does not mean that the employers have to. Or that everyone has to agree with it.

You do agree with people having the right to disagree with decisions, right?

bbauska wrote:I capitalized pastor because I wanted to stress the church position being separate from the State.

So if a "PASTOR" incited a riot in his sermon, the State can't do anything? If a "PASTOR" does discriminate in his sermons, should his employer (regardless of whether it is a government or not) just ignore that?

The pastor did not say anything about gays. He chastised the schools for special treatment.

I'd actually like to see all of what he said. I can't see the alleged 'anti-Catholic' remarks, so I'm not sure anyone can be sure about what he 'did not say', until it's clear what he did say

Is it bigotry to say that schools should treat everyone the same?

Please quote what he actually said. He apparently attacked equal rights for women. How is that advocating treating people the same?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/EASTSIDE-CATHOLIC-PRESIDENT-RESIGNS-br-Over-backlash-in-firing-of-gay-principal-1612082

Apparently you cannot fire someone for having values contrary to the Catholic School the gay Vice principal was at without causing an uproar.

Does this meet the criteria for double standard yet?

Uproar? ha ha. Because there was no uproar over Eich, you guys have been totally silent and accepting about it!!

Two things - you seem to be conflating "can" and "must" when it comes to organisations firing people who contravene 'values' (and the decision is for that organisation to make, not you!). Even if every situation you bring up can lead to a firing, does not mean that the employers have to. Or that everyone has to agree with it.

You do agree with people having the right to disagree with decisions, right?

Uproar? I'm sorry... I was quoting RickyP.

I am fine with people getting fired. May people deserve it. I have a problem with the decisions on firing (even in a religious organization!) being used as anti-gay discrimination.

Eich is fired... OK.
Zmuda fired... Not OK.
(that is why I think it is a double standard)

Regarding Walsh, I am looking for comments on women. His comments on Catholicism, Islam, Homesexuality and other issues are from the pulpit. Is the pastor's views (which are backed up by the Bible, in his opinion) not religious speech protected? Even if the views on women are being done from the pulpit, why is it an issue for the government (Pasadena)? How is THAT separation of Church and State? I will see your position if Dr. Walsh is espousing these views from his job with the City of Pasadena. Fire him IF that is the case.

Until there is proof that he is spewing such garbage from his work, I will stand on my position.

It really is not too far from yours, Danivon. I just want the same freedom to fire if I don't agree or want to deal with a firestorm of an employees position regardless of side.

If religious speech is 'protected', to the point that employers cannot have the rights you want to have for all other kinds of speech, is that not a 'double standard'?

You seem to be suggesting that a pastor could incite a riot or mske racist statements and because it was from a pulpit face no repercusions. What if it were an imam preaching that terrorism was acceptable? Is that Ok and 'protected' if he's doing it in a Mosque?

You seem confused about the separation of Church and State. It would mean that the State could not get him fired as a pastor or stop him from preaching. It also means, by the way, that the religious aspect should not impact on the work of the government. If anything, if you take it to the extreme, it would mean you should not allow prayers before government meetings, or allow religious leaders to hold government roles. Perhaps this is another 'double standard'?

But the point about his job is that the government is his employer, and is acting as such - and this is not part of the Separation of Church and State. Again, you want all employers to have the same rights, but not government employers? That ol' 'double standards' again, by the look of it.

Free speech (and free religion) is about protecting individuals from government censorship, but it is not about protecting them from all responses, or contrary opinions, or allow people to keep their jobs (regardless of whether the employer is a government or not) if their expressed views or actions impact their jobs or their employer.

Perhaps your judgement on the Walsh case is clouded by his denomination. Perhaps you are also confused about the difference between a sacking, and a suspension during an investigation. The point of Walsh being suspended is so that they can investigate. They are indeed looking at his job performance - http://www.whittierdailynews.com/201405 ... erformance

From the article:

Pasadena First Amendment attorney Michael Overing, however, said the city can judge Walsh based on his public statements.

“We all have a First Amendment right to speak our minds and that First Amendment right when speaking your mind carries with it the fact that you may be held accountable for the things that you say,” Overing said. “So whether we are the public health department or we are Donald Sterling, it doesn’t really matter. The fact of the matter is our words, we have chosen them, and those words have a consequence.”

and

Rev. Ed Bacon of All Saints Church, where Walsh has given many speeches including on the harmful effects of discrimination, called Walsh’s religious sermons “heartbreaking” and said he was struggling with the “cognitive dissonance” of Walsh’s work in public health.

“I’m a huge proponent of the First Amendment, and freedom of speech and freedom of religion are essential to American democracy. I think the issue has to be impact and when you are expressing hate speech as religious leader that’s one thing but when you are expressing hate speech as a public servant and a representative of the people, that’s a different thing,” Bacon said. “And in Dr. Walsh’s case you can’t divide the two, he is one person and his job is to promote public health in the city of Pasadena and the health impacts of bigotry are horrendous.”

You seem to be prejudging the case, before that investigation is complete. I can't find what he actually said in detail -

bbauska wrote:Eich is fired... OK.
Zmuda fired... Not OK.
(that is why I think it is a double standard)

Hmm. Eich was not 'fired' he resigned (why do you keep repeating a falsehood, why?)

Zmuda was fired. He still is fired. People are allowed to express their dismay, as they have in both cases, that someone has left their job.

In the Zmuda case, what is happening is a debate within the organisation as to whether that was the right thing to do.

Are you saying it's wrong for people to disagree with one but not the other? Only you seem to be disagreeing about the Eich case if not the Zmuda one. You seem to be disagreeing about the Walsh case (despite not being in possession of the facts), but not the Zmuda one. Yet more 'double standards' from the guy who likes to accuse others of it.

If you want to keep digging, I can lend you a shovel.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Eich is fired... OK.
Zmuda fired... Not OK.
(that is why I think it is a double standard)

Hmm. Eich was not 'fired' he resigned (why do you keep repeating a falsehood, why?)

Zmuda was fired. He still is fired. People are allowed to express their dismay, as they have in both cases, that someone has left their job.

In the Zmuda case, what is happening is a debate within the organisation as to whether that was the right thing to do.

Are you saying it's wrong for people to disagree with one but not the other? Only you seem to be disagreeing about the Eich case if not the Zmuda one. You seem to be disagreeing about the Walsh case (despite not being in possession of the facts), but not the Zmuda one. Yet more 'double standards' from the guy who likes to accuse others of it.

If you want to keep digging, I can lend you a shovel.

I said fired because saying "forced to resign" became cumbersome after the multiple times I wrote it.

People DO have the right to disagree. EXACTLY MY POINT. You don't have to agree and can make choices based upon that opinion.

If you don't want to work for someone... Don't!
If you don't want to keep that employee... Don't!

It is quite simple. Now you will deride my position for being to simple. The ability to do an action is simple. The decisions that go into making that choice... Well, that is more difficult and personal ones. I try to bring clarity with the right to perform an action, and there are reasons why that may or may not be a good decision given. Those all go into the decision making process of the decision maker.

As for the shovel comment, I grew up on a farm. Digging out of all the crap that is going around is a lot easier if you have a shovel rather than using your own hands.

Let me get this down to basics:
Does a person have a right to quit his/her job if they disagree with the position of the employer?
Does a business have the right to release an employee if they disagree with the position of the employee?

I say yes on both cases. The reasons are personal, but the right should be equal. I argue for the right to do something, not whether or not it is the right decision.

I hope this adds some clarity.

bbauska

I say yes on both cases. The reasons are personal, but the right should be equal. I argue for the right to do something, not whether or not it is the right decision.

Most of the time the relationship between employer and employee is an unequal relationship. Usually the employee is in an unequal bargaining position....
Society has recognized the inequities and over time, employment law developed to provide minimal protections for employees.
Employers have a right to employ people but not to exploit them when they are vulnerable. This includes minimal protections for employees when it comes to firing rationales.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I say yes on both cases. The reasons are personal, but the right should be equal. I argue for the right to do something, not whether or not it is the right decision.

Most of the time the relationship between employer and employee is an unequal relationship. Usually the employee is in an unequal bargaining position....
Society has recognized the inequities and over time, employment law developed to provide minimal protections for employees.
Employers have a right to employ people but not to exploit them when they are vulnerable. This includes minimal protections for employees when it comes to firing rationales.

I am not saying that someone should be fired/forced out/recommended to leave, etc... for a discriminatory reason that is protected by law. I gave the example of Planned Parenthood donation for a reason. It is a political position that makes it as similar as I could to the Prop 8 donation (being a political donation as well).

Eich was forced out for his Prop 8 donation, and that is a political donation. I have asked what discriminatory actions Eich committed, and you say giving to a political group that you disagree with is discriminatory. I do not think it is discriminatory to donate money. Thus the similarity.

bbauska

I have asked what discriminatory actions Eich committed, and you say giving to a political group that you disagree with is discriminatory

No I didn't.
I did say that Prop 8 was in itself an attempt to create discriminatory law. That is law that discriminates being the pairings of heterosexuals and homosexuals - offering the legal protections of marriage to one but not the other... You get that the law discriminates between the two?
Neither did the stakeholders of Mozilla say Eich say what Eich did was in itself something that should get him fired...Until he became CEO. At that point the juxtaposition between the stated values of Mozilla (inclusiveness) and Eichs public actions made it apparent that Eich could not lead Mozilla and uphold the stated values of the company... You get that it isn't Eichs actions alone - but the fact that his actions contradict the values that as CEO he needs to exemplify that caused his undoing? He does, and said so as much after resigning...

Careful... Don't say that Eich was fired. Danivon corrected me, remember.

I do get what you are saying about Prop 8. At the time, it did NOT violate the law. Just donating to Prop 8 did not violate anyone's civil rights. It is just a donation.

I agree with all you said for Eich being released being a choice of the board based upon their values.

Are YOU saying that you are ok with an employee being released for a donation to Planned Parenthood?

bbauska wrote:I said fired because saying "forced to resign" became cumbersome after the multiple times I wrote it.

People DO have the right to disagree. EXACTLY MY POINT. You don't have to agree and can make choices based upon that opinion.

But you made several points around this. Some of it was about Church and State. Some of it was about 'double standards' among those who agreed with one person leaving their job over an issue, but did not agree with another case.

It is quite simple. Now you will deride my position for being to simple.

No, while it is simplistic and ignores the power differentials between employer and employee,

As for the shovel comment, I grew up on a farm. Digging out of all the crap that is going around is a lot easier if you have a shovel rather than using your own hands.

Maybe the reference is not one that works in the US vernacular. I was referring (obliquely, I admit) to the saying "when you are in a hole, don't keep digging".

Let me get this down to basics:
Does a person have a right to quit his/her job if they disagree with the position of the employer?

Yes. Although they should do it within contract and employment law.

Does a business have the right to release an employee if they disagree with the position of the employee?

I think the difference in impact is a factor here. An employee's job (and so their employer) is a large part of their life. A single employee is likely to be a much smaller part of the employers' lives.

I say yes on both cases.

And I would say no, because I believe that employers have a far greater power here than employees. I also think that it is more important that people can work. I do however understand that employers do have rights, within contracts and employment law.

The reasons are personal, but the right should be equal. I argue for the right to do something, not whether or not it is the right decision.

Is a business a person?

I hope this adds some clarity.

Not really. You seem to be arguing that the government does not have the right, as an employer, to sanction an employee who does something that they disagree with if they do that as a religious official at a pulpit. Why this exception? Seems to be that you are arguing that some employers, and some employees should not have the same simple rights that you espouse above.

Then you do not get it. Let me be much more clear, and I hope that helps you.

I am ok with the pastor being fired, released, dismissed, forced to resign, etc...

I am not fine with people saying that a person should not be released for an example I gave such as Planned Parenthood.

If the city of Pasadena does not want that employee, then fine! Can his butt!

If Hobby Lobby chooses to fire an employee that has a bumper sticker on their car that supports the ACA, then fine; can them too.

All I am saying is give me some definitive clarification that you see the firing, er, forced resignation of Eich as the same as the firing of someone who supports Planned Parenthood, and this all goes away.

I have agreed MANY times that I am OK with Eich's forced resignation. Can you say you would support an employer dismissing an employee for the examples I gave above with Hobby Lobby/ACA or Pro-life/Planned Parenthood support?