Man Fired For His Bigotry

His side of the story is that the woman mentioned her fiance 4 times during the workday. Nothing sexual or whatever.

According to at least one other account, he used the word "deviant" when describing her, and did so in front of her and an HR executive with Brookstone. He also supposedly said "I hate people like that".
 
Southern Man said:
According to his interview, he got about three words in. He was obviously baited by this queer.

What you libs don't understand is that we social conservatives simply don't care what consenting queers do to each other in private. And if they respect that we reciprocate with the same level of respect.

For example, when I was in college there were two male queers who lived down the hall who would come to parties in speedos, have loud sex in their rooms, and generally bait us to disrespect them. Of course most of us obliged. I had several lesbian friends, one of them very close in fact, and we got along great. My girlfriend's sports team had several lesbians, including the coach, and I never had a problem with any of them, since they were all classy and discrete.

Currently, there's a couple we go to church with, lesbians, with two kids, and we talk with them frequently. One of them is a college coach and she's coached my daughter during summer camps.
Click to expand...

According to this man's own statement, all the woman did was mention her "fiance" four times during the workday. That is hardly baiting him. No where does he say she talked about sex or discussed homosexuality with him. She was having a civil conversation. No where does it say anything about her baiting him.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Please don't be a retard and try to paint this in black and white terms like Annie and CaptKid. I'm not saying all Christians are bigots. This guy is a bigot. And damned near all evangelical Christians are bigots. The black protestants that turned up at the polls on Prop 8 in California and voted against gay marriage are bigots. The mormons who funded the plan to get black people out to vote against gays are bigots. Etc, etc.
Click to expand...

I won't go into the specifics of the case presented in this post as I have done nothing but watch the video presented here. I do want to address the bolded part of this post though. I will say this: I agree with Damo based on the face value of what we have seen so far that "at work" is not the place to discuss what was discussed by this guy.

To ask the "fundamentalist" Christian to turn a blind eye to the recognition homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle is to ask them to abandon their principles. I know that all so called Christians aren't on the up & up as it pertains to this issue because they don't denounce all sinful behavior, just this one in particular but that doesn't change the fact of my previous sentence.

To call "fundamentalist" Christian bigoted is (to them anyway) the same as calling God bigoted because they believe the Bible, word for word, is inspired (breathed) by God. The Bible plainly teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful and to be condemned:

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;..."

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Many "fundamentalist" Christians believe that if the country starts supporting, recognizing and giving credibility to such reltionships that our country will go the way of ancient Rome...

"Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people."


I could go on but you can see where "fundamentalist" Christians are coming from. I don't agree with all of them on everything. I don't like it when they cry "foul" when something like this happens. I think it weakens their position and they look as loony as some on the far left who react similarly at times.

I am as fundamental as it gets when it comes to my Christianity. I believe homosexuality is sinful and if the person involved is unrepentent they will be damned to hell. I also believe the same about adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, cussing, etc. I won't be discussing that at work nor anyplace else unless someone first engages the subject. I would be lying if I said that this belief didn't sway the way I vote. I would also be less than truthful if I said this was a 'make or break' issue with me. It is not. I am not afraid that such will lead to the downfall of the USA. I think there are many other more important things if left unchecked that will. I choose to live my life concentrating on my own spirituality and sharing it with others only when they inquire about it.
 
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21



The bible is a full of strange ideas.
 
WinterBorn said:
According to this man's own statement, all the woman did was mention her "fiance" four times during the workday. That is hardly baiting him. No where does he say she talked about sex or discussed homosexuality with him. She was having a civil conversation. No where does it say anything about her baiting him.
Click to expand...

Actually, in his statement he says that she mentioned her lesbian lover four times, so he tried to get her to shut up about it and went away to a chapel to pray, then came back and she repeatedly continued to mention it, then he told her, away from customers, that homosexuality was "bad stuff".

I'm taking an educated guess that she was baiting him.
 
Desh, I don't want to go into it a whole lot here as I don't expect to convince anyone about anything I believe so this is just an FYI post. Most "fundamentalist" Christians believe there is a distinction between the Old & New Covenants. That the Old Covenant or Testament is not in force now per:


"For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission."

When Christ died, the old covenant was taken "out of the way" and the new covenant was dedicated (put in force) by the shedding of His blood.

"Jesus ... having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

This is why I don't make such a big deal out of the 10 commandments thing. They are an old covenant item...though all but 9 are covered in the new covenant and some of those covered are even made stronger. Like I say, this is just an FYI so you will have a better understanding of where some of us are coming from with our beliefs.
 
Damocles said:
What the heck are "tokens of virginity"?
Click to expand...

Blood-stained nuptual sheets most likely - In rural areas of the Middle East it is still common for the “tokens of virginity” to be displayed outside the door of the house of the just-married couple whose marriage was just consummated.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, in his statement he says that she mentioned her lesbian lover four times, so he tried to get her to shut up about it and went away to a chapel to pray, then came back and she repeatedly continued to mention it, then he told her, away from customers, that homosexuality was "bad stuff".

I'm taking an educated guess that she was baiting him.
Click to expand...

Educated guess? Educated on what? Your past anecdotal nonsense? He only accused her of mentioning her fiancee. According to him that was the worst of it. Your guess is based on personal bias alone.
 
leaningright said:
Blood-stained nuptual sheets most likely - In rural areas of the Middle East it is still common for the “tokens of virginity” to be displayed outside the door of the house of the just-married couple whose marriage was just consummated.
Click to expand...

good reason to punch your husband in the nose on your wedding night, just for security purposes......
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, in his statement he says that she mentioned her lesbian lover four times, so he tried to get her to shut up about it and went away to a chapel to pray, then came back and she repeatedly continued to mention it, then he told her, away from customers, that homosexuality was "bad stuff".

I'm taking an educated guess that she was baiting him.
Click to expand...

All he said was that she kept mentioning her homosexual fiance. I feel fairly certain she didn't refer to her as "my homosexual fiance". She brought up her fiance. That is not baiting him. That is casual, nonsexual conversation between co-workers.

He claims they were away from customers, but at least one source says he used the word "deviant" to the woman and to the HR exec, and also reportedly said "I hate people like that".

If all the woman did was mention her fiance, then there was no baiting going on. And this guy over-reacted and went about things in entirely the wrong way.
 
RStringfield said:
Educated guess? Educated on what? Your past anecdotal nonsense? He only accused her of mentioning her fiancee. According to him that was the worst of it. Your guess is based on personal bias alone.
Click to expand...
Based on my life's experiences of course; hardly "anecdotal nonsense". :fogey:
 
WinterBorn said:
All he said was that she kept mentioning her homosexual fiance. I feel fairly certain she didn't refer to her as "my homosexual fiance". She brought up her fiance. That is not baiting him. That is casual, nonsexual conversation between co-workers.

He claims they were away from customers, but at least one source says he used the word "deviant" to the woman and to the HR exec, and also reportedly said "I hate people like that".

If all the woman did was mention her fiance, then there was no baiting going on. And this guy over-reacted and went about things in entirely the wrong way.
Click to expand...
You were wrong about her only mentioning it four times, so you're probably wrong about her not mentioning homosexuality as well. You're also wrong to bring in third party testimony, which is hearsay. I'm simply relying on what the accused said. :)
 
RStringfield said:
You're assuming something happened without any evidence. Your personal experience has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

I stated that I assumed that. And again, it is based on my personal experience in similar situations. My guess is that she baited him, and that he was a dufus for taking the bait.
 
Southern Man said:
You were wrong about her only mentioning it four times, so you're probably wrong about her not mentioning homosexuality as well. You're also wrong to bring in third party testimony, which is hearsay. I'm simply relying on what the accused said. :)
Click to expand...

There was nothing other than this man's claims that she mentioned her fiance 4 times, and then he went to the chapel. When he came back he had already made up his mind to do something, and was waiting on the opportunity.

If it was 4 times or 6 times or 8 times, she did not bait him by merely mentioning her fiance. And that is all the man said she did.

There is not baiting, regardless of what you life experiences have told you. The man who was fired never mentioned anything at all except the fact that this lady mentioned her fiance.

As for third party testimony, it is relevant. "According to Brookstone, Vadala used the word "deviant" with both the manager in question and the Brookstone HR executive. He also referred to "the homosexual lifestyle" and told a co-worker "I hate people like that.""

from: http://www.tips-q.com/1570665-peter-vadala-martyr-faith

This is an example of how different sources paint a different picture. A reporter contacting Brookstone received information that is relevant to the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top