Massachusetts man fired for telling colleague her gay marriage is "bad stuff"
 

Massachusetts Man Says He Was Fired for Telling Colleague Her Gay Marriage Is Wrong - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Interesting story, but below is an interesting video. It features Vidala relating what happened and his own defense.



By the time I got to the end of the video, I was a bit discouraged to find the source of the video. His cause is apparently being championed by an organization called MassResistance.org, which is an MA-based organization opposed to gay marriage (and anything "unhetero"). They position themselves as some kind of public service alerting MA and the rest of the country about the "normalizing" of homosexuality. I didn't delve too much into the site, but they imply how damaging this is to society.

What do you think about all of this?

Do you think Vidala was treated fairly?
Where do we draw the line between stating fact and voicing opinions in this kind of situation?

I'm not sure if his firing was necessary. He does make it sound like the woman was rubbing her homosexuality in his face to make a point. But when I think about it, mentioning her recent/upcoming marriage 4 times over the course of an entire day isn't that excessive. That's like once every two hours of an eight-hour day, on average. That doesn't seem too excessive for someone who is excited about a big event, and it certainly wouldn't be excessive if they were generally being chatty throughout the day at work.

I think this guy is posing as the "persecuted Christian." He believes he is entitled to voicing his belief, which is basically "homosexuality is a sin." To many, this translates to homosexuality is "evil," "morally wrong," "deviant," "a choice, and a bad one at that," etc.

I don't care what or who you are or what you believe. Stating as much about homosexuality is out of line. I don't think this sort of thing should be tolerated in a workplace environment. He should have kept his belief to himself. If he was so uncomfortable about her discussing her relationship, he should have simply stated that he would prefer it if she wouldn't talk about her personal relationship matters with him in the workplace.

Instead, he throws down a judgement that could be deemed as discriminatory, if not hateful.

What are your thoughts?

Peter Vidala acted in a manner not conducive to a stable and friendly working environment. That his views happen to be homophobic aren't important to his termination. He insulted a fellow employee without any provocation, and we feel that this behavior would likely continue in the future.

That's how I would respond if I were his manager.

^^ Allow me to correct that, discriminatory at best ...

I hope that guy commits suicide in lieu of his beliefs, save us all, like heysus did.

I would discourage him from discussing this at the workplace but I wouldn't fire him (unless complaints were frequent)

Yeah, I don't think I would have fired him. It all depends on what information I could glean from each party.

I would at least have given him some kind of disciplinary action. I understand he's Christian and has a particular view of homosexuality (whether it's Christian or not is another story). But you don't tell people in the workplace that they're moral deviants for being in a homosexual relationship.

^^ Definitely fire him ... c'mon people ... since when is working with a zealot or anyone who can't differentiate between professional water cooler chatter and church conducive? Will has it right. It has nothing to do with his homophobic tendencies but it is evident the behavior will be prevalent in future.

That and he is way too uneducated/ignorant to be working at such a place.

I would say fire him for being delusional.

He insulted a co-worker because he felt God wanted him to?

So it's God's fault? The guy is quite clearly a delusional homophobe. Even if you accept the existence of a Christian God, the bible makes it clear that he doesn't talk to people directly (or that's how I was taught it). What happened to turning the other cheek? What happened to let him who is without sin? What happened to mote in your brother's eye?

All in all, this is a guy that has used his own interpretation of Christianity to allow him to insult a woman who has not hurt him, and has at worst gone through a ceremony that this man's beliefs would call irelevant. It makes as much sense as me calling someone out for eating jam on their toast instead of peanut butter. Where's the harm to him - its not as if the woman stole away his wife or daughter.

I would write him up, but would stop short of firing.

He's a dick, never should have said anything. However, having worked in a corporate job I've seen LOTS more get swept under the rug as there needs to be documented history of such instances in order for HR to not have a heart attack.

If you're going to bring something up in conversation, you should be prepared for others to express opinions on it. Sometimes those opinions may bother you. If Mr. Vidala had been persistent or unnecessarily cruel in voicing his opinions, I could see cause for firing him, but being occasionally exposed to opinions you find offensive is one of the prices you pay for freedom of speech.

Don't discuss ANYTHING at the workplace. I was perusing the comment section of a news article a few months ago, and some clown said he was firing everyone and anyone who voted for Obama. It's a sad state of affairs when exercising your right to vote can end up costing you your job.

That man must have been sued out of business.

The thing is, he'll admit the real reason why he fired those people anonymously, but he'll have other reasons when confronted by it. He'll get away with it.

I would have written him up with a formal disciplinary letter. I also would have spoken with him about the issue at length. I then would have spoken with manager who filed the complaint and ensured that she understand the sensitivity of flouting her homosexuality in certain people's faces. To be clear, what she did wasn't wrong. Straights talk about their marriages to the point where I'd like to smack them but, as a manager, she should be sensitive the larger issues.

If it is inappropriate for someone to talk about their gay marriage is it also inappropriate for someone to talk about there hetero marriage? I know i've talked about my marriage and wife at work a lot.

This guy deserves what he got.

if he was a cashier, a stocker, an accountant, that would probably have been harsh. But the guy was a manager. His job was to talk to employees and customers. I wouldn't want someone who can't go on without proselytizing others working in that position if it was my store.

This is it exactly, I feel that every man has his right to beliefs. And other men should respect that. "Bother no man about his religion."

However, I think that churches, anti-religious groups and the like all do a very poor job of reminding their followers that there are others who disagree and do not deserve to die by the sword or be damned to hell. Seems every group in America is the "only right one."

It is on both sides I see here. Liberals bashing the archaic, idiot God believing Christians as archaic and stupid. And Conservatives bashing gay-rights as damned, immoral and wrong wrong wrong!

Both sides are retarded. If you aspire to be truly "liberal" then see how the Netherlands approaches things. They allow all sides and somehow can allow the differences in their society while going about their peaceful day. If you aspire to be truly "conservative" then observe how the Dutch can again, retain their own religious piety and yet still get along with their xdressing post-op neighbor just fine.


I don't see this as a religious vs gay problem, I see it as an American problem of immature self-centered righteousness.

Do you guys see organizations such as MassResistance.org as a part of the wider problem?

Is this an isolated incident, or is this telling of a clash of cultures in certain areas?

Conservative, puritanical culture is always going to resist the gradual pull of progressive, open culture. I'd like to think we balance each other out, conservatives ensuring that our eyes aren't bigger than our stomachs and progressives making sure we don't stagnate.

It'll be nice when the powers that be decide the fight over homosexuality is lost and move on to something else. Hopefully something which isn't a human rights issue.

How are you any less of a zealot?

I don't see how saying you disagree with someones decision (in any capacity) is grounds for termination.

For instance: "hey pete, after work I am going to go give my wife the old cleaveland steamer" Reply: "I don't think you should do that" Grounds for termination? If not, then it is only a matter of taste.

I agree the gay woman should not be subjected to harassment, but if she wants to discuss her personal life then she is opening herself up for a discussion....where she not only gets to talk about what she thinks but the other participant gets to state his opinions.


In the same way, any society works by self-policing, at least to a degree. If someone chooses to live outside the social norm they should be prepared to encounter people who disagree with their lifestyle. Likewise they are free to disagree with the bible-thumpers.

If the man stated his desire to wed a pure, virginal woman whom he has never met nor seen before, would it be inappropriate to state that he was deviating from the norm or making a mistake? Answer: Nope

It is perfectly OK to express an opinion when someone thrusts their personal life upon you. It is not OK to continue to pursue the issue after it becomes an issue.

Likewise, if she told him to stop expressing those opinions, she had better stop rubbing his face in it.

The problem, Slims, is that you aren't quite comparing on the same level. It would be like saying to one of your co-workers: "Regarding your marrying a black. That's just wrong" or "Regarding you working here: The workplace isn't for women. You should be at home for your husband and kids."

These other issues used to be against the norm too, but they were similarly wrong to judge in such ways.

If all he really did was say that he thought homosexuality was wrong, I don't think it deserves employment termination.
A warning, maybe a day or two off the job might have been more appropriate, just to make sure he doesn't bring his beliefs in the workplace again, especially if they include discrimination against any group of people.
But maybe the manager felt under pressure, and feared for he and his store's reputation if a gay advocacy group made a big deal out of it, had he not fired the employee.

..

Nothing to do with political correctness at all, I say whatever comes to my mind and even I wouldn't be so ignorant as to say that. It's called using a little common sense when speaking to others, some people just have a little more than others I suppose.

It's like Baraka said,
some things are better left unsaid, especially in a work environment.

Yep. That's how employment works. If only self righteous busybodies were a constitutionally protected class.

Or maybe a private business felt that someone who was so willing to judge others openly was not the best person to have in charge of managing employees and talking to customers. Maybe they thought it would be bad for business in a state where same sex couples are numerous and have significant purchasing power to have someone in such a position dealing with the public.

This is what is puzzling to me: people who love to talk about political correctness gone awry demanding protection for bigotry. Apparently protecting someone from being harassed at work is too much, but protecting the ones doing the harassing isn't.

From the above article: "She knew how I felt about homosexuality"

Interesting no-one saw anything wrong with her constantly goading him with something that she knew was completely against his beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, that is a form of harassment in itself.

I wonder what would've happened had he been a Muslim instead of a Christian...

Maybe the woman was excited about getting married - and for that reason was talking about it? It is in itself deeply homophobic to state that a gay person has to keep quiet about their life in case it offends any homophobe who happens to be about.

It sounds to me like the guy made these comments, got called into HR to talk about it - he starts tossing around phrases like "deviant" - so they let him go.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Who says they have to keep quiet about it? But if she knew what she was saying was going to be offensive to him, reminding him about it 4 times in the day can also be considered insensitive.

So if I was working at this Brookstone and said that fundamentalist Christianity is nothing but a joke, a crutch for the stupid, that their god is probably laughing at their abject ignorance and fear, and that Peter Vidala was a fool among fools, I shouldn't be fired? I'm not being politically correct, that's for sure.

What? Peter Vidala was rubbing his fundamentalist Christianity in my face!

It's the darndest thing. I'm entirely for gay marriage, yet amongst the politically active I find gay marriage foes infinitely more tolerable.

I'm sure it's just some really abberant anecdotal experience of mine and nothing more. I'm sure we're no where near the line between activism for civil rights and activism for the sake of activism.