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.)
 

---

Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Out of interest, Storm, would you be similarly conflicted over the firing of a KKK member?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Not sure, Ed. Are the situations really analogous?
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I agree, blacwolve.
 

---

Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
The situation is as follows:

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.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

or even someone who creates a troublesome work environment simply by being gay

---

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.

---