Should the right to call a fellow employee 'a deviant' be protected under law?

I think I read he'd already found another job

Some of my friends are polarized over this as well.  It's pretty simple to me, after watching the video.  The repeated use of "so-called" ("so-called female fiancee," "so-called homosexual marriage"), calling it "bad stuff" and the rather breathtaking way he tries to turn this into HIM being discriminated against, just makes me want to punch a wall.

And it should be noted that Mass Resistance is one of the accounts hosting his video on YouTube.  Unless they've hijacked him, he's a willing participant in all this, the male equivalent of Carrie Prejean, believing it's his call to speak out against the horrors of "so-called" homosexual marriage.  

Maybe it's simply because I'm completely fed up, but I have zero sympathy for this guy.  And this video does nothing to help his cause.

---

by: Kringas @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:18:18 AM CST

A Wirthlin wanna-be

Right down to the hate group sponsorship. Any bets on whether this jackass was placed there specifically for a test case?

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The martyr that wasn't ...

Amazing how the religious zealots and conservative Right will find someone to make a martyr regardless of facts pointing in the direction of the truth.

Just like Prejean, who on two occasions now, first the photos, now the teenage do-it-u-self video, certainly has tarnished her "I was chosen by God" image and yet, Sean Hannity treated her like she was Mother Theresa the other night during an interview.

I think I have finally figured it out.

The zealots and Right have so few "people to look up to" and be shining examples of their cause, they'll put anyone on a pedestal.

If Ronald Reagan, John Wayne and Charlton Heston were still alive they wouldn't give these pipsqueaks the time of day.

That, and don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way.  

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar. - Edward R Murrow

---

by: Lyndon @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:28:23 AM CST

The only reason Prejean was put on a pedestal

Was because it made it much easier for people like Hannity to look up her skirt.

Vadala doesn't wear a skirt (at least, not that I know of) and doesn't have a surgically enhanced bust; he will be a flash-in-the-pan by comparison.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:00:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why should straight religious anti-gay bigots get more protection?

If I went to my senior partner and told him he was a dirty, deviant old man for, say, marrying a woman 20 years his junior then I would be fired so fast they'd probably throw me out of an upper storey window rather than escort me to the ground

If I told my colleague that her marriage, as a white woman, to a black man was sinful and that I hate people who marry outside of race lines I'd be lucky to leave the building in one piece - and rightly so!

This isn't about religious persecution - it's about being grossly unprofessional and disrespectful to a colleague

---

by: Sparky0 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:48:42 AM CST

Nope.

I was of the mind that if you make insensitive comments to a co-worker, it leads to the destruction of worker cohesiveness.

Sometimes, at work you must keep your feelings to yourself.  That is also a part of a job.  If there was an unwed mother, would he have been fired for calling her a deviant?  YES.

Sorry, I'm all for religious freedom, etc... but it doesn't give you the right to disrupt your workplace by calling out sinners.  

I really wish they would just lock themselves up in their church and pray about it.  Leave people who live in reality alone!

---

by: flyerfier @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:51:02 AM CST

What's Missing...

...from this story is the part of Vadala's youtube VictimVid2009 where he talks about what Brookstone's HR told him during his termination meeting.  From an employment-law standpoint, this is an open and shut case.

1.  Same-sex marriages are legal in Massachusetts, regardless of Vadala's own views on their validity.

2.  Vadala was an at-will employee, which permits Brookstone to terminate him for any reason or for no reason.

3.  Brookstone has no legal obligation to permit Vadala to speak out about his religious beliefs on company time.

4.  Brookstone is not a state actor, so the First Amendment doesn't apply, no matter how badly Vadala and the Christianists wish that it does.

5.  Employees in the private sector generally do not enjoy the same free speech rights at work as they enjoy during off-hours.

6.  Private employers may sanction or terminate employees for any speech that reflects poorly on the employer, regardless of when and where that speech is made.

7.  Brookstone's policy of restricting employees' speech on same-sex marriage and sexual orientation/identity applies to all employees, regardless of the employees' personal views or religious beliefs.

8.  Brookstone expected Vadala to treat all customers and employees with respect regardless of his beliefs about their sexual identity, orientation, or marital status.

9.  Vadala did not have to work for Brookstone, as he is free to seek employment with companies and organizations who do not impose restrictions on his personal speech.

10.  Vadala knew or should have known that he would encounter married and affianced same-sex couples in the course of performing his regular duties at Brookstone.

11.  Vadala nevertheless violated Brookstone's rules governing employee speech on the subject of same-sex marriage and sexual orientation/identity.

12.  Vadala was fired for violating the speech policy and because of how he treated his co-worker, not because of his religious beliefs.

13.  Brookstone has not discriminated against Vadala based on his religious beliefs, because Brookstone did not single him out for discriminatory treatment based on his Christianity.

All of this is true regardless of how badly Vadala and the Christofascists wish that it weren't.

---

by: JTW @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:08:09 AM CST

Brilliant analysis.

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:48:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree with Snooky - brilliant!

---

by: fq5757 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:51:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hopefully, though,

a few of those terms are temporarily a matter of law -- "it's only a First Amendment violation when the government does it" really doesn't combine well with privatizing all of the means of communication (and spaces where people might speak).  And "at-will employment" is an anti-union ploy that I'm really not comfortable claiming for our side.  A number of the other points listed are straight from the Libertarian Party "freedom can mean nothing other than absolute ability of corporate employers to coerce employees" playbook, and if they're valid in this case they're just as valid when a "Christian employer" enacts extreme right-wing "speech codes" on the job.

Of course, verbal abuse of co-workers is a pretty strong reason to fire someone, and doesn't push a policy which would put everyone's job permanently at risk just for being the wrong type of person.

---

by: M @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:51:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Like it or not...

...my points are all completely true regarding the state of employment law in America.  While you raise several well-thought-out questions about whether these points are good ideas in and of themselves, they nevertheless reflect the law as it stands today.

I personally have little concern over "Christian" employers enacting speech codes for their employees.  These speech codes already exist in the private sector--neither of us would last for very long in a "Christian" bookstore, for example.  But the economics of the situation really does take care of the situation for us (and we don't even have to resort to Libertarian reasoning to understand why).

Those of us who disagree with the speech of private-sector religious businesses are already in the habit of taking our business elsewhere, and, frankly, the speech of those businesses makes it clear that our business isn't wanted, anyway.  On the flip side, employers like Brookstone are gay-friendly and tend to be good on our issues because it's good for their business and it reflects the kind of patron they want.  In other words, both the "Christian" bookstore and Brookstone have taken a completely rational and economic approach to constructing their speech codes on LGBT issues.  And because employees are always free to seek out employment with businesses whose speech codes mirror their own views (and shoppers are always free to do the same), I don't think we should worry too much about this one.

One final point:  Your last sentence seems to evince a slight misunderstanding of my points above.  The law most certainly doesn't permit employers to put "everyone's job permanently at risk just for being the wrong type of person."  Indeed, that's precisely what I was arguing against (and I would probably defend Vadala out of principle alone if that's actually what had happened to him).  Vadala was punished for his speech (the freedom of which may be circumscribed by his employer as a condition of his continued employment) and not at all for his religious beliefs or identity as a "Christian."

---

by: JTW @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 13:33:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the part I had trouble with --

Vadala was punished for his speech (the freedom of which may be circumscribed by his employer as a condition of his continued employment)

This is one of those areas where I think it's reasonable to circumscribe the "freedom" of businesses to better serve the public.  Some restrictions on speech (verbal abuse of co-workers and customers, in this case) are quite reasonable -- but this isn't the same as throwing free speech to the corporate wolves.  I think there should be limits as to what restrictions on speech may be made conditions of employment.  (Of course, if those restrictions are framed ethically we'll still see room for firing people like Vadala who refuse to either behave professionally or shut up.)

---

by: M @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 16:36:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I understand you correctly...

...you are making a normative argument that private employers should only be permitted to restrict certain kinds of employee speech as a condition of employment.

This approach is problematic under several aspects of existing First Amendment jurisprudence (the most important of which is that the Free Speech Clause only applies to the government).  Even so, let's nevertheless accept that your approach is one possible solution to the inherent difficulty presented by the intersection of private employers' business discretion/needs and private employees' right to speak freely.

I have a few questions about how your approach would work in practice.

1.  Who decides what kinds of speech are/aren't circumscribe-able under your approach?  The courts?  The legislature?  The employer?  The employee?  Someone else?

2.  What principles should guide the line-drawing process under #1?

3.  How should businesses be permitted to respond when employees make non-circumscribe-able speech that reflects badly on the employer or harms the employer's business interests?

4.  What do you mean by "ethical restrictions" on speech?  I'm not sure I'm following you.  Likewise with the relationship between "professional" behavior and private speech.

I look forward to hearing back from you.  This is a very interesting discussion we're having.

---

by: JTW @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:31:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He needs to keep his private religious beliefs to himself

As a manager, and representative of the company, he has no business describing a person as "deviant", whether to their face or in a public statement later on.

If a co-worker had mentioned dining out the night before and having an interesting drink, would he have felt compelled to announce: "Well, I think alcohol is immoral."?

Civility in a workplace is important. Keeping a lid on offensive remarks based on politics or religion is a good step towards that goal.





Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

--- Blaise Pascal, Pensées, #894

---

by: Lynn Miller @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:15:27 AM CST

Why are LGBT people so willing to be rolled over?

FUCK I'm sick of meek gay people.

I went to a comedy show where they told one stupid, mean gay joke after another.

I stood up and told off the entire 1600 person audience.

I'm not taking this homophobic shit anymore.

Stand up and have some balls!

---

by: Tom P @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:40:11 AM CST

Being abused gets to be a habit,

so getting rolled over by society gets to be so familiar and comfortable (despite the longterm harm psychologically, emotionally, and financially).  It is something we learn in childhood and gets refined by society, church, school, government, .....  

But what you did also involves being OUT - OUT-OUT.   Not for the faint of heart!!    Being OUT in the public marketplace CAN BE an act of "radical gay militant activism", depending on where you live and who just happens to be observing you, AND (and this is the big one), how affectionate you may be with your partner - we're talkin' the normal PDA straights do naturally.

Personally, I do not recommend being OUT-OUT without some kind of self-defense that you are comfortable using.   In many places, simply hanging out like straight couples do in public can be seen as an act of aggression.

Decades MORE of Psychological Abuse? - OR - Stonewall.  Nationwide.  NOW!

---

by: John Bisceglia @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 20:13:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The EEOC is quite clear

You do not have 1st amendment rights of free speech in the workplace. Such actions that create a harmful environment are subject to the EEOC rules.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-o...

---

by: Dale8 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:54:13 AM CST

The second half of that I can get behind --

The first half of that gets pretty creepily Orwellian pretty quickly.

---

by: M @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:52:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IIRC

Back in '94, the reicht were able to temporarily derail an EEOC policy which made religious harassment, and the display of personal religious items in the workplace a crime. They claimed it was "outreach" and they though they had the special right to shove their opinions down everyone's throat.

Thankfully it's been restored, even though the reicht's still squealing like a stuck pig because then it means they can't have special rights anymore.

Listen to "TransTalk" every Monday from 4-5pm ET on http://www.falconradio.org beginning January 11th!

---

by: Marlene @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 20:54:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

martyr complex

another case of self righteous bigots expecting they should be allowed to act in whatever manner they want without consequences because they have 'deeply held religious convictions'.   if this manager had come to him and told him she found his 'so called' religion to be deviant and said she thought his so called god was bad stuff, i imagine he would have made a video gloating about getting a heathen fired for persecuting him for his christianity.

if you work for a place with zero tolerance for harassment, you can't play the martyr when you are fired for violating company policy.  perhaps he should go to work as a spokesman for maggie  - just hope he doesn't have any porno in his closet.

folk the war

---

by: suejeffers @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:18:41 AM CST

That's really the long and short of it

We can say whatever we want but we must be willing to accept the consequences. This is what these numbskulls fail to realize. My assistant manager was as conservative as I am liberal (she wanted huckabee). We got into a few discussions about issues of the day and agreed to disagree and all was good. Neither of us called the other names and we didn't bring up politics much after that. You can disagree with someone without attacking them. This guy got what he deserved.  

"Any transition serious enough to alter your definition of self will require not just small adjustments in your way of living and thinking but a full-on metamorphosis."

---

by: thehawke @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:10:56 AM CST

He's a playwrite (sic), you know

http://www.petervadala.com/

---

by: Kringas @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:21:18 AM CST

And trying to be a reporter...

He's got some sound on that website and I have to say he is comparable to a lot of the local radio talent in the San Francisco area.  (But he could also be parroting what he heard on the radio and it's pretty easy to do that and sound good.)

---

by: fq5757 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:43:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just listened to his radio news clips from WNTK

As a former Military Radio and TV news broadcaster, with a whole lot of training and experience, let me critique as I did when I was on active duty.

Breathy over paced delivery with poor mike control and heavy sibillant "S" - trite cliche writing and poor pause control when delivering names - leading to poor distinguishing of uncommon words.  Candidate would be rejected from DINFOS for these failings.

http://www.wntk.com/newsite/co...

Hardly surprising that the station he reported for also airs Michael Savage, Rush Limpdick and the rest of the brown shirt elite.  It is a Faux News affilliate station.

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:02:31 PM CST

Yeah

Looks like an open and shut case of him being a bigot and then jumping on wingnut welfare to quench their thirst for cases of "christians being oppressed" because such a notion is obscene and people are starting to catch on to the fact that it is a bunch of christians trying to oppress everyone else's beliefs and lives.

The letter is pretty damning. Woman corrects statement, points to fact of reality, bigot freaks out. Bigot continues freaking out, refuses to accept humanity of fellow employee, bigot loses job. That's what is and it's what needs to be because you can't have a liability of an employee who refuses to treat other human beings like equal human beings unless you want to quickly have a branch filled only with bigots who can trigger something really damaging like a lawsuit from a customer. I mean, what would he have done if two gay men had come into his store, hugging and kissing and asking him for a specific book? Would he have "stood up for his religious principles of being a bigot" and told them how immoral they were? Throw them out of the store? How would Brookstone recover from that PR snafu?

It's the same thing that protects him if he wears his cross in front of an atheist boss, so that his boss doesn't decide to mock his deluded beliefs and magic sky fairy and call him less than competent because of his beliefs.

I look forward to this case reaching a judge and getting thrown out with a nastily worded decision by the judge, but not so much how we'll see this and all the other bullshit lies run in the next five years of NOM propaganda.

Ugh, hate christianists so fucking much.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:05:25 PM CST

Awww....

The editorial comments in the margins are so cute!

---

by: P4ttythe3p3rf3ct @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:23:51 PM CST

I'm curious

I'm curious whether those in the lgbt community who felt the woman shouldn't have shared her upcoming marriage were:  a) older; and/or b) from states that don't have marriage equality.

I've said for years that I belong to the last generation willing to say "please, sir, may I have some more", and that the generations that follow will understand that they were born with the same rights as everyone else and will simply demand those rights as their due.

While I fall into the older category (and am considered a "militant activist" because I have a tendency to go out and scare the natives), it's true that those who have had to live underground for decades do tend to be less open and more conservative.  And those who live in states which don't have the protections that some of us enjoy would, it seems to me, naturally be less likely to stand up for themselves.

Does anyone have a feel for whether this might be a generational or geographical schism?

---

by: BobbiCW @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 16:15:59 PM CST

A little bit of both, mayhap

I have seen the generational gap with my own eyes, though. There are queer undergrads from southern and western VA running around my University that accept without question that they have equal rights that their governments and fellow citizens are failing to recognize.

I remember one dialogue in a class about queer issues in VA in which a guest shared a story about coming to accept her attraction to women very late in life. Most of the undergrounds found the idea of fearing and repressing one’s own sexuality literally incomprehensible. They seemed to be assuming that all people in the closet knew who they were and accepted themselves but simply hid from other people to avoid persecution. They found internalized homophobia to be a completely foreign concept.

Part of this might be because they grew up with Internet access. While the people a bit older than me might not have had any access to queer people or information about queer people — particularly if they were from rural areas — this younger generation has always had instant access to all sorts of information (or misinformation).

---

by: pgraydon @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:12:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's only a matter of time

---

by: Kringas @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:32:46 AM CST

Peter - like Carrie - is the gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

"Brookstone Fired me because I'm a Christian. They got away with it because once upon a time four judges created the oxymoorn of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts."

---

by: Kringas @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 21:59:16 PM CST

Watch the vid of him talking about it

He has contempt for gay people, he refers to her marriage as "Her so-called'marriage' ", he seems completely clueless that his dogma has any impact on other people's lives, or if he does, he feels it doesn't matter, because he's right, and everybody else is wrong.

Then he talks about the training videos at work covering the issue to some extent and disagreeing with them - yet he still took the job.  SO he doesn't get to cry religious persecution, period.

We have to listen to straight people go on and on about THERE fiancés, THEIR marriages, if equality means anything it should mean that we don't have to be told that we're bad and dirty according to their backward and psychotic misinterpretations of scripture.  

= equality isn't free =

---

by: NVTodd @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 03:26:05 AM CST