quote: Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee who posted anti- gay passages from the Bible at his work cubicle in protest of the computer industry giant's diversity policy and in an effort to persuade gays to repent, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The court said Richard Peterson, who worked in HP's customer support division in Boise, Idaho, for more than two decades, was not a victim of religious discrimination. Instead, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, an employer has the right to enforce an even-handed policy against harassment and discrimination, even if certain messages are suppressed.
Peterson claimed that HP, whose headquarters are in Palo Alto, unfairly singled him out for punishment while allowing other employees to display religious symbols and pro-diversity posters. But in the 3-0 ruling, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that Peterson had been fired "because he violated the company's harassment policy by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment'' and disobeyed managers' orders to remove the postings.
On the one hand, I think it's pretty clear that in order for a business to function, everyone has to get along. Businesses can require that you dress a certan way and say certain things while at work. Business can encourage you to think a certain way. (Be a positive!, etc)
So, it's pretty clear that business can legally fire someone for saying or not saying certain things that the business deems important to fulfilling its mission.
On the other hand, I can't help but think about if the tables were turned and the company was some company that was predominantly staffed by conservative Christians. Should the company then, for the sake of everyone getting along, have the ability to fire openly gay people? Are the situations really analogous, though, and was HP justified in firing Richard or should it have respected his freedom of speech? (Note that I believe Freedom of Religion is a subset of Freedom of Speech and is not, a priori, any more important than secular speech.)
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, because this was a private (non-governmental) situation, freedom of speach is more of a non-issue, and that it was taken as signs of discrimination because HP potentially has gay employees who would be (perhaps were) offended by it. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a more effective analogy would be that of a conservative Christian company firing an openly gay employee who also decorated his cubicle with those anti-Christian bumper stickers you see in stores and was constantly harping on the "intolerance" of his coworkers.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that somewhere in policys and procedures of HP (that I'm sure he had to sign at least yearly) that kind of thing is defined. for instance I can't put up any of my Howard Dean stuff here at my desk while being employed by GE. and as a matter of fact, yes a company can fire you just for being gay! It's getting harder to do, but there is no law or protection preventing it. Ask Olive Garden : http://www.metrojustice.org/NewsLetters/news98/Dec98/boycott.html I know it's outdated, but I thought it illustated the point.
Posts: 122 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, it's just a case of a nasty little jerk trying to anger fellow workers.
More cynicly, it's a case of a nasty little jerk trying to get fired so he could parasite off the company with a lawsuit.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
HP has the obligation to maintain a non-hostile work environment. That means freedom from words or actions that single out individuals for criticism based on ANYTHING but their work performance. At least that's how most progressive companies are interpreting the Federal and State rules, just to be on the safe side.
Technically, the rules only mention certain protected classes (i.e., you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion and maybe a few other things, including in some places, sexual orientation). And those "non-discrimination" statements in the law have been applied broadly to mean you also can't knowingly allow one employee to verbally or physically harrass another employee based on any of those same issues. And, as I said, to be on the safe side, the companies are just saying "no harrassment at all on ANY basis" and leaving it at that.
So, the truly analogous situation is not firing for BEING gay or religious, or whatever, but firing for making disparaging comments about someone else other than about their work performance.
Seriously, in truly careful companies even complaining about someone's hygeine!!!
But anyway, I personally applaud HP and think they probably had no choice if they are to protect themselves from lawsuits that they would actually lose.
Religious speech is not protected speech on private property. The property or business owner gets to set the rules within some very broad guidelines.
And frankly, I bet there would be a problem if someone was actively promoting a gay lifestyle -- i.e., trying to recruit new members of the "gay conspiracy" as opposed to posting things like "gay pride" stickers.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a more effective analogy would be that of a conservative Christian company firing an openly gay employee who also decorated his cubicle with those anti-Christian bumper stickers you see in stores and was constantly harping on the "intolerance" of his coworkers.
I think the KKK analogy has more parallels to this situation than complaints about intolerance -- in this case, the man is intolerant and posting bigoted Bible passages. In the KKK analogy, the member may be intolerant and posts bigoted Bible passages, such as the mark of Cain or selected readings from Leviticus or Paul.
In the complaining homosexual analogy, the homosexual's complaining of intolerance, not promoting it.
So I must ask again -- would you be so divided over the firing of an intolerant employee who was intolerant against a certain race or gender, rather than a certain sexuality?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I don't think any of these restrictions on private businesses are very fair. It's their company - they should have the right to fire anyone that they think is going to harm it's productivity, including someone who creates a unproductive work environment by being offensive, or even someone who creates a troublesome work environment simply by being gay (or a member of a host of other protected groups.) It's their business - they can hire and fire who they want, provided it's in some way for the productivity and effectiveness of the company.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. apply to the government, but not private business. I think the court made a good call.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: or even someone who creates a troublesome work environment simply by being gay
I don't see how simply being gay could create trouble. It's no one's business unless the person makes an issue of it themselves. If they are, it is equally offensive for heterosexuals to be discussing sex in the work place.
edit to add: I thought there weren't any passages in the bible that are anti-gay. At least that's what a lot of you folks are always saying. Couldn't the man have contended that by "unnatural" he meant additives and preservatives?
quote:It's no one's business unless the person makes an issue of it themselves. If they are, it is equally offensive for heterosexuals to be discussing sex in the work place.
posted
I don't know specific passages, dkw. I'd be mildly curious to know those as well. But I do know that the KKK do claim to be Christian, and do believe that God is against mixing of the "races", that God has appointed different subgroups of humanity to rule over the rest, and so on. Isn't it always true in cases of prejudice that people feel God (or Nature, or Science, or whatever forms the framework of their understanding of the universe) has so ordained things? Given that fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they could dig up some passages somewhere that seem to support them. We could probably go dredging through the muck of their websites and find out which, though I'm not sure it's worth that.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone trudges out the Sodom and Gomorrah stuff about the gay men trying to rape the angels, and then there's another passage about molesting children, I think... But a lot of it is Sodom and Gomorrah.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I was curious if Eddie had something in mind, or if he's just decided that Leviticus and Paul are so awful they must be racist too. I've not heard either of them used that way, that I can recall.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, did you read that article? The guy wasn't protesting gays in general -- he was protesting that the company was doing something he interpreted as *promoting* a lifestyle choice he disagreed with. The article specifically mentions that one person said the guy got along with his coworkers just fine, including the gay ones. His posters were to object to the company's "diversity" posters. Personally, I find the idea that an employer would tell you that you *have* to accept homosexuality as equal to and/or the same as being Hispanic, blond or black is more than a little obnoxious. And so much for diversity.
OTOH, I would not have a problem firing someone who put up offensive posters where customers could see, especially after being warned. I see his point, but I'm sure he could have found a better way to make it known.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, just a nasty little jerk. That he calls himself "christian" just makes him a nasty little lying jerk.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I think I prefer the interpretation of a company telling me not to accept someone else's alternate lifestyle so much as to just keep my mouth shut, and if I can't say anything nice I better not say anything at all. Not so much a war of ideals as a war of politeness.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
