• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Fired for disagreeing with homosexual marriage

Funny how so many of you doubt this when the former Miss California got roasted for saying she didn't agree with it, but it wasn't her place to judge someone who was homosexual (by Perez Hilton..WTF he was doing on the Miss American panel I don't know...). She was totally slammed for weeks for that comment. Don't like the answer you might get? Don't ask the question.
 
Agree with it, don't agree with it - fine.

Just don't force it on someone else, whatever it is you're thinking.

People didn't agree with my wife and I getting married - due to the difference in our ages (17 years.) We didn't listen - and we've been happy for the last dozen years. Doom on them.

Hell, this is a fun topic. I'm working on a blog post about "unconventional marriages" anyhow - and I'm going to take it in all sorts of directions! I figure as long as we're going to get into homosexual marriage, we might as well carry unconventional marriage in all theoretical directions!

And, frankly, I don't see anything "morally" or "ethically" wrong with "unconventional" marriage - provided everyone involved is willing and happy: amoandry (homosexual male marriage,) amogyny (homosexual female marriage,) conventional monogamy, polyandry (multiple men,) polygyny (multiple women,) full-on polygamy (multiple partners of both genders,) or even "line marriage" (which could, theoretically, last a couple of hundred years before dissolution - if it ever dissolves!

The whole and entire problem comes not from making unconventional marriages available, but from people wanting unconventional marriages foisting their beliefs on someone else. This is another case of "militant homosexuals" making life difficult not only for heteros around them, but for other homosexuals as well (those trying for mainstream acceptance.)
 
All he can do is file a grievance against it and Hope they see that he was just stating his opinion and not harassing her.
 
IMO, everyone in this country needs to get over themselves.

What happened to your life outside of the workplace remaining outside? Whether its religion or sexuality, I really don't care what any of my co-workers do when they go home. Do your job, that's why you're paid to be there.
 
Yup, 'How bout them patriots', safest answer you can give and allows you the time to kick your cell phone into 'record' mode as they try to steer it back to the subject they want to screw you on.

btw...in Massachusetts, recording a conversation without notifying the other parties is considered "wiretapping"
 
Weighing in late, and not having researched this whole thing, my take is this:

First of all without the back story we don't really know whether this was harassment or not, and whether or not the firing was an overreaction. It could be either way, depending on the way people actually behaved.

But if a co-worker was haranguing another co-worker about the immorality of his/her marriage, then it's really inappropriate, assuming that the marriage itself is legal. It's inherently inappropriate whether or not the person doing it is a better person, using reasonable arguments, in the majority, or even just plain right.

It's pretty common for people getting married to talk about it at work or elsewhere. Plenty of places would routinely have gift pools and the like for newlyweds, and nobody would suggest that this sort of thing is foisting their personal choices on their co-workers. If that's all that was happening here, then harassment might well be the case. If there was more involved, then it's quite possible that the firing was excessive, but if you approach this as if it's inappropriate to talk about one's impending marriage at work, this would certainly be a new and different rule, and if you interpret it to mean that only heterosexual marriages should be talked about at work, then it's discriminatory, whether you think it is right or not.

There are still people who believe that interracial marriage is immoral and against God's will. Just recently there was a pretty notorious case of a judge in Lousiana who refused to recognize an interracial marriage because he was convinced that a mixed race child can't succeed in this country (talk about cognitive dissonance!) It wasn't that long ago that mixed race marriages were illegal in some states, and people argued against their legalization on religious and moral grounds, with passion and conviction.

If the marriage in question here were a mixed race marriage, would you approach it the same way? Where would you draw the boundaries here?

Gay marriage is new, controversial for many, and problematic for many, but it's here, at least in many places, and I think it's going to take a long time for people to get used to how to handle these situations. Until then, I expect that there will be excesses on both sides of the question, and it's going to be difficult to sort out who is in the wrong when there's confrontation.
 
Ok, well let's take it the other direction and leave it as he was just stating his opinion. What if it were a hetero marriage and he was stating his belief that all marriage is a sham. Could he be in trouble for that? Or is it only trouble when your opinion goes against a "minority" (race, religion, orientation)? If that's the case, one would call that discrimination. If he's free to express his disagreement with marriage in general, even the marriage of a white man to a white woman of similar age (the "most inoffensive" possible combination), yet can't say the same about two women, why does one group get special treatment? All these anti-discrimination rules/laws are threatening to make the majority a minority here.
 
If you assume the rules are completely different, and written to be biased, then yes, that would be unfair. But, there's nothing to suggest that this is what happened here. He said something when he knew he should have remained silent. That much is already established.
 
If you assume the rules are completely different, and written to be biased, then yes, that would be unfair. But, there's nothing to suggest that this is what happened here. He said something when he knew he should have remained silent. That much is already established.
Yes, and if you look at my posts in here, you'll see that I fully agree that he would've been smarter to avoid the topic. I'm just posing the question as to what would people think if it swung the other way.
 
This sounds like a carbon copy of the Miss Universe deal this past summer. Miss California is asked a very similar question, rather out of place for the task at hand. The answer is seemingly brushed aside, and later all hell breaks loose when the cameras are rolling. It seems there's a rash of baiting certain people, knowing ahead of time what the response will be.
Ask me if I care, and I may say 'that's nice'. Even though i don't subscribe to that particular idea. But throw it in the face of a fundamentalist, and you can guarantee the result. It's almost as if certain people try to justify their beliefs and actions by constantly beating the rest of us over the head, beating us into submission.
It would be easier if we were all the same color, thought the same, were all good looking, agreed with each other, all smart, etc., but we're not, and the variety adds a little spice. Just don't keep shoving your spice up my nose, and I won't burden you with mine.
 
Bottom line is that Americans are used to being able to express their opinions freely... "inalienable rights" I believe they are called. Viewpoint discrimination in the workplace is new and does not fit the definition of tolerance. If his response was an opinion based on religious belief then they have a serious conflict in their policy because the law protects both of their opinions.
 
Back
Top