Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Accepting a friend request doesn't mean that you can be harassed without consequences. I do think the lesbian should have dropped him as a friend but we don't know if she did or did not. Maybe she dropped him when she saw what he was doing.
This x 2.
Maybe she accepted his request because she felt that accepting was the more likely option for keeping the peace with him as much as possible at work.
I know that's just speculation on my part, but I have been presented with Facebook friend requests that I didn't want, but accepted anyway because because denying them could possibly cause hard feelings and needless conflict from either the requester or others.
How about if the anti-Christian bigot is the boss?
If the boss has not broken the law, or union contract, his/her decision stands. If this man belonged to a union, his job would come with some protections, and their would have been a process and mediation.
You still don't get it. You cannot harass your coworkers outside of work. People should lose their job if they annoy their coworkers.
No one is saying that Christians are always the bad guy, but the ones that won't stop when asked to are.
Accepting a friend request doesn't mean that you can be harassed without consequences. I do think the lesbian should have dropped him as a friend but we don't know if she did or did not. Maybe she dropped him when she saw what he was doing.
What I do outside of my job is my business. No one should lose their job because people like you find Christianity offensive. That's not harrassment.
What I do outside of my job is my business. No one should lose their job because people like you find Christianity offensive. That's not harrassment.
He was harassing his co-workers on the job. He was advised his actions were unacceptable to his employer. There were two employees that we know of. We are only getting one side of this story.
He was doing it on company time, thus stealing from his employer. If his employer has a no harassment policy, and his employer determined he violated that policy, then his employer had the right to fire him.
Most large companies, and this is a large multi-state company, have policies on harassment. The corporation would be allowing a hostile work environment if he was not stopped. Then it becomes a bigger issue for a corporation. They made the correct decision.
BTW. Did you give him money yet? Christians have not stepped up their support. Less than $5,000 has been collected. You should be rallying the troops, Jeff.
2. Is there any kind of sexual orientation that you oppose? Yes or no.
Most people would answer No and Yes. That's why it's not the same.
I asked this earlier, but didn't see any answer. What does it mean to "oppose" a sexual orientation? What do you do in that opposition (besides posting on an Internet forum)? What is your goal in that opposition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I've been curious about this for a while (since I noticed that several people quoted this post to reply to it).
Homosexuality exists. It has always existed and it always will. It's legal, and it has nothing to do with most of us (since it only affects a small minority). What exactly do you expect to accomplish by being opposed to homosexuality? Do you think your opposition will result in anything changing? What would change if you were to succeed in your opposition?
BTW, what is stifling your opposition to homosexuality?
How about if the anti-Christian bigot is the boss?
He or she gets to make the rules. Inside their God - fearin' domain, anyone who doesn't like the morning prayers, lunchtime prayers, prayers after work and a few more over coffee can either put up with it or find another job. That, Vizio old chum, is how it works.
2. Is there any kind of sexual orientation that you oppose? Yes or no.
Most people would answer No and Yes. That's why it's not the same.
I'm curious to see the answer as I immediately thought: No and No - within the law.
Only jeff would assume that most people would say 'yes' to the second. So long as they are not breaking the Law (and that roughly deals with the non -consent aspect) I don't care what people's sexual orientation is.
I shall be interested to see whether anyone other than Fundamentalists Christians say 'Yes' and if so, why.
Jeff claims we should not have a knee jerk reaction and always claim that it is the Christians that are to blame but yet he keeps starting threads in which a Christian does something inappropriate or illegal and he defendsthem simply because they are promoting what he thinks a Christian should be able to do everywhere and anytime, that is violate the separation of church and dtate, discriminate against homosexuals and to harrassed non Christians. When was the last time that Jeff admitted that his type of Christian was ever in the wrong.
In this story the employer did warn him not to continue his harassing coworkers and he refuse saying it was his right to do so and the employer had to accept that. Therefore it appears from jeff's posts that a true Christian does not have to obey either the law or his boss and should be totally immune for that, in other words the christian is the true boss over his employer, the government or the courts. And failing to allow a Christian to deem them self above the law or able to dictate to their boss is persecution of Christians.
I know that if was working where I harrassed fellow workers and my boss demanded that I stop and I refused to end my harassing I too would be out of a job without a paycheck. Being a Christian should not make you immune from your actions if you are doing something wrong. The solution was not for the other workers to quit or work under harassment like Jeff seems to think. Being a loyal worker and a decent person should not be any more difficult for a Christian than for anyone else.
2. Is there any kind of sexual orientation that you oppose? Yes or no.
Most people would answer No and Yes. That's why it's not the same.
1. no
2. no
Neither race nor sexual orientation alone is something for me to oppose. If the person in question is a good person or a bad person is the only thing that concerns me. Why would you "oppose" someone for something that has no effect on you at all? Your race, sex, sexual orientation, and even religion (most of the time) have no effect on my life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
