• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Allstate terminates manager over homosexuality column.

Thirst_For_Knowledge

I Am A New Title
Jan 20, 2005
6,610
340
42
Michigan
Visit site
✟8,524.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ChristianCenturion said:
:scratch: Um, wouldn't criticism of a company fall under opinions? And why does a company get off without accountability - isn't that the alleged rhetoric that Republicans get accused of?
If companies can't be addressed as notifying the public of being "gay friendly", then why is there so much published information FOR gays about such companies and nobody is complaining about that?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=860&q=business+list+%22gay+friendly%22

Seems to be duplicity in action to complain about someone 'leaking' information about a company and what they support or don't support.

As for the rest, Allstate doesn't look like they will fair very well in light of this issue:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16516589&postcount=38

But then again, risk is their business.

I kind of disagree with you. There is a difference between telling people, yes my employer supports this and my employer supports this, aren't they evil and bad.

If the writer of this article said negative things about their employer, I would definitly support the firing. I don't think that this is the case here, which is the reason why I do not support the firing.

The more I think about this, I actually do not believe that the employee has a legal foot to stand on. Which is sad, but I don't see him winning the suit.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 22, 2005
14
0
43
London (at the moment)
✟124.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Robert43 said:
On own time, man posted anti-'gay' article insurance giant says didn't reflect its values.

A former manager with Allstate has sued the insurance giant, alleging the company, which financially supports homosexual advocacy groups, fired him solely because he wrote a column posted on several websites that was critical of same-sex marriage and espoused his Christian beliefs.

I've read through all the posts, and haven't seen anyone actually mention the fact that Allstate is an "Insurance Company".

They provide insurance to people and companies and also investigate claims made by their customers. I don't pretend to know alot about corporate matters, but Insurance is one of those things that a person/company's claim should be based on their claim alone, not on the "Nature" of their customer/client.

If the person deciding on the successfulness of a claim or a customers acceptance onto a certain policy, or even the person who decides who works for the company - has such strong views towards a certain minority (homosexuals in this case)... I would see that as a disadvantage to the employer, in the same way as someone who is intollerant towards any other particular person in the workplace or clientele. THUS bad customer services.

This guy had such strong views that he wrote an article BASED only on this subject and his own personal prejudices.

I think this issue is more about the company worrying about customer services / satisfaction than an issue with a certain religion/faith/article... Anyone who causes an employer to "Worry" about the happiness of their customers - shouldn't be an employee there

Well, that's what I think anyway. (sorry bout any spelling mistakes by the way, there's probably about 100)
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,207
576
In front of a computer
✟40,488.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
rainbowchristianqld said:
I've read through all the posts, and haven't seen anyone actually mention the fact that Allstate is an "Insurance Company".

They provide insurance to people and companies and also investigate claims made by their customers. I don't pretend to know alot about corporate matters, but Insurance is one of those things that a person/company's claim should be based on their claim alone, not on the "Nature" of their customer/client.
:confused: I don't recall anyone stating that homosexuals should not be insured by Allstate.
If the person deciding on the successfulness of a claim or a customers acceptance onto a certain policy, or even the person who decides who works for the company - has such strong views towards a certain minority (homosexuals in this case)... I would see that as a disadvantage to the employer, in the same way as someone who is intollerant towards any other particular person in the workplace or clientele. THUS bad customer services.

This guy had such strong views that he wrote an article BASED only on this subject and his own personal prejudices.

I think this issue is more about the company worrying about customer services / satisfaction than an issue with a certain religion/faith/article... Anyone who causes an employer to "Worry" about the happiness of their customers - shouldn't be an employee there

Well, that's what I think anyway. (sorry bout any spelling mistakes by the way, there's probably about 100)

And welcome to advocating to 'thought police' mentality. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

MidnightBlue

June Carter, pray for us!
May 16, 2005
2,378
206
65
✟26,111.00
Faith
rainbowchristianqld said:
If the person deciding on the successfulness of a claim or a customers acceptance onto a certain policy, or even the person who decides who works for the company - has such strong views towards a certain minority (homosexuals in this case)... I would see that as a disadvantage to the employer, in the same way as someone who is intollerant towards any other particular person in the workplace or clientele. THUS bad customer services.

It also makes the company vulnerable to lawsuits, if the plaintiff can show that staff has exhibited a blanket hostility toward a certain class of person.
 
Upvote 0

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,708
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ChristianCenturion said:
That's odd; I was under the impression that same gender couples didn't normally producing offspring while practicing homosexual behaviors. Wouldn't offspring be a result of heterosexual behavior or voluntary, supplementary actions?

If the company has stated policies, and the couple decided to violate those policies -- the company is perfectly within its right to fire that couple.

(It IS rather delightful being on the "other side" of the debate for once, and getting to use the "special rights" argument!)
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,207
576
In front of a computer
✟40,488.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
thirstforknowledge said:
I kind of disagree with you. There is a difference between telling people, yes my employer supports this and my employer supports this, aren't they evil and bad.

If the writer of this article said negative things about their employer, I would definitly support the firing. I don't think that this is the case here, which is the reason why I do not support the firing.

The more I think about this, I actually do not believe that the employee has a legal foot to stand on. Which is sad, but I don't see him winning the suit.

I don't see anything that would indicate your "if" is a probablility, do you?
Let's assume that the article has some facts to it and the website that disclosed the information of where this author worked (you did read the thread's reference, didn't you?), one would imagine that the proper response would be to file suit against the third party website, not violating protected civil liberties.
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,648
1,608
68
New Jersey
✟108,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
ChristianCenturion said:
I don't know for sure, but I will reflect my own opinion in that there have been several teacher/student scandals in the papers and those were not even physical education teachers (I believe). It only makes accountability and prevention sense to have the least likely orientation in charge of other peoples' children. It also is not very reassuring to have a teacher whom is forbidden to enter and monitor isolated areas given the incidences possible/probable with violence and/or drug sales/use. The more our inner city schools resemble prisons (i.e. random searches, metal detectors, attacks on teachers, etc.) the less I would be inclined to make the shower/locker room susceptible to Law of the Jungle.


I'm sorry, I haven't finished my coffee but what does this have to do with anything. I don't get the connection to the question asked or even the connection to homosexuals holding certain jobs. I be very confuzzled. :confused: :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Spherical Time

Reality has a well known Liberal bias.
Apr 20, 2005
2,375
227
43
New York City
Visit site
✟26,273.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
ChristianCenturion said:
I don't see anything that would indicate your "if" is a probablility, do you?
Let's assume that the article has some facts to it and the website that disclosed the information of where this author worked (you did read the thread's reference, didn't you?), one would imagine that the proper response would be to file suit against the third party website, not violating protected civil liberties.
I don't understand, there is no right to privacy. How did the third party website violate this man's civil liberties?
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,207
576
In front of a computer
✟40,488.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Spherical Time said:
I don't understand, there is no right to privacy. How did the third party website violate this man's civil liberties?

I didn't state that or at least I didn't intend it that way... the suit mentioned would relate to Allstate filing suit with the website that released the bio referencing them in the information. I also didn't say that they would be successful in the suit, simply that it would have been their appropriate response to their objections.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianCenturion

Veteran / Tuebor
Feb 9, 2005
14,207
576
In front of a computer
✟40,488.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
mhatten said:
I'm sorry, I haven't finished my coffee but what does this have to do with anything. I don't get the connection to the question asked or even the connection to homosexuals holding certain jobs. I be very confuzzled. :confused: :confused:

Maybe if you would leave it in context, you would have seen that it responded to a post and/or question.
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,648
1,608
68
New Jersey
✟108,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
ChristianCenturion said:
Maybe if you would leave it in context, you would have seen that it responded to a post and/or question.

Yes I know but it still didn't seem to answer the question to me. I said I hadn't finished my coffee. ;)
 
Upvote 0

charmtrap

Iä-R’lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn
May 14, 2004
2,220
185
SF, CA
✟3,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This article is so blatantly one-sided, I can't even respond hypothetically without giggling. If you read further down in the article, it appears Mr. Barber has a history of being a moralizing little pain in the ass. No wonder they fired him. I'm only surprised it took so long.

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"Just like Allstate can't go in and say, 'We've discovered your ethnicity and we're going to fire you,' I don't believe Allstate should be able to go in and say, 'We've discovered your anti-homosexuality viewpoint and we're going to fire you.'"

Actually, Mr. Barber, they can and they did. You were not a good fit for the company culture. Hit the road.
[/font][font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/font]
 
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
42
✟277,741.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can see Allstate's point of firing him if Barber's article mentioned that he worked for Allstate, or there was something that linked him to the company. They have an argument that because Barber has now had his opinions on homosexuality linked with the company, the company can argue he is portraying a bad image of the company even if it was indirect. If I was an employer and an employee of mine said some sort of scathing remarks and it was publically known that he worked for me, I would be concerned of the effects that could have on my business. Whether or not that applies in this case, I don't know.

In my experience companies have a history of this sort of thing. I've known a few people with personal websites that have gotten in a bit of hot water with their employers because they mentioned their employers on their website and made it known that they worked for the given company. A close friend of mine was indirectly threatened with being fired if he didn't remove entries on his website that mentioned he was working for a certain company. The references to the company were all neutral or positive.

But the companies have a concern that because the owner of the website is known to work for said company, anything else that is said on the website, even if a particular entry doesn't have anything to do with the company, can be linked to the company. In a marketing sense, this is a risk for the company.

I agree there is at least a small bit of a legit business concern with such things, and firing employees for what they say on their own time is probably legal (provided the company can show they were somehow linked to the comments and show a legit business concern). But it opens up the possibility for abuse and the criteria of what is and isn't a valid reason for firing an employee for what he/she says on his/her own time becomes arbitrary.
 
Upvote 0

Jetgirl

The cake is a lie.
May 11, 2004
4,521
498
44
San Diego
Visit site
✟29,539.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Robert43 said:
On own time, man posted anti-'gay' article insurance giant says didn't reflect its values.

A former manager with Allstate has sued the insurance giant, alleging the company, which financially supports homosexual advocacy groups, fired him solely because he wrote a column posted on several websites that was critical of same-sex marriage and espoused his Christian beliefs.

Ridiculous, tantamount to firing someone for their private religious beliefs.

Unless the company had clear guidelines that employees are not to voice opinions contrary to the companies on private time, and he signed an angreement of the sort, they have no grounds.
 
Upvote 0

Jetgirl

The cake is a lie.
May 11, 2004
4,521
498
44
San Diego
Visit site
✟29,539.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
charmtrap said:
Actually, Mr. Barber, they can and they did. You were not a good fit for the company culture. Hit the road.
[/font][font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/font]

Which would mean that my company could fire me because my Christian co-workers all go to church together and I don't fit the "company culture"?

Pththbth to that. :p
 
Upvote 0

charmtrap

Iä-R’lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn
May 14, 2004
2,220
185
SF, CA
✟3,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jetgirl said:
Which would mean that my company could fire me because my Christian co-workers all go to church together and I don't fit the "company culture"?

Yep. At will employment means you can be terminated for any reason, or no reason, barring obvious discrimination of a protected class or retaliation against a whistleblower or whatnot. Employment is presumed to be voluntary on both sides. And 'at will' is a pretty high hurdle to overcome.

Pththbth to that. :p

You may not like it, but them's the rules.
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
21
CA
Visit site
✟36,328.00
Faith
Catholic
Jetgirl said:
Ridiculous, tantamount to firing someone for their private religious beliefs.

Unless the company had clear guidelines that employees are not to voice opinions contrary to the companies on private time, and he signed an angreement of the sort, they have no grounds.

In many states, companies do not need grounds.
 
Upvote 0