you are right Rolf, they are disgusting

[sprinter]

But the good 'conservatives' in DC don't like people speaking out about your rights to free speech. It is all designed to break up the family unit.

 

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=15654

 

A 23-year veteran of the Eastman Kodak Co. has been fired after objecting to a pro-homosexual memo this month and is now looking to take legal action against the film giant.

 

Rolf Szabo, who worked as a millwright at Kodak's world headquarters in Rochester, N.Y., was terminated for refusing to recant remarks officials say did not adhere to the company's "Winning & Inclusive Culture" designed to promote diversity among employees.

 

The events that led to the action began when Szabo was forwarded an e-mail from his supervisor regarding the Human Rights Campaign's annual "Coming Out Day." The memo reads:

 

 

Today, Oct. 11, is the Human Rights Campaign's 15th annual National Coming Out Day for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. If one of your employees elects to "come out" at work, there are several things you can do to help that person feel comfortable in sharing his/her orientation in the workplace:

-- Be supportive of the individual who wishes to share this information.

 

-- Acknowledge his/her courage to publicly share this personal information.

 

-- Respect the individual's privacy. Understand how broadly he/she wishes the information to be shared.

 

-- Acknowledge your level of awareness of this topic, and share your personal willingness to understand.

 

What can supervisors do in the work environment to support their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered employees who wish to be "out" to their supervisor or co-workers?

 

-- Be sensitive to the employee's language in defining their personal orientation.

 

-- Support the employee in displaying appropriate personal photos in the work setting.

 

-- Recognize and respect that not all (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) employees find it OK to be out at work. They should not be questioned or harassed about their sexual orientation.

 

-- Act quickly and responsibly if any anti-gay humor or negative comments are made in the workplace.

 

A footnote referencing the last two suggestions reads:

 

 

Keep in mind that such behaviors violate Kodak's Values as well as Kodak's Equal Opportunity Employment Policy, which all supervisors are responsible for maintaining in their areas. Specific examples are cited in your "Call to Action" training materials. Reported violations of this policy are to be thoroughly investigated. If verified, disciplinary action is to be taken.

The response by Szabo was brief, but it was dispatched to all recipients of the original e-mail, some 1,000 Kodak employees:

 

 

Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive.

Thank you,

 

Rolf Szabo

[RangerM]

It is one thing to have a personal opinion. It is another to make that opinion known through words or actions, especially in a corporate setting.

 

That said, the email system is Eastman's. If a supervisor is reflecting corporate policy, the employee has no right to dictate its use; only to complain of its mis-use, and only to his supervisor or above.

 

If it is corporate policy to support "Coming Out Day", then the only recourse this gentleman could/would have would be a claim of some sort of harrassment. (That's a BIG stretch, btw)

 

Did he deserve to be fired? That is for the company to decide. This is not a matter of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment limits the power of GOVERNMENT, not private companies or individuals.

 

When you post something like this, you are asking for trouble.

[Trimdingman]

It is one thing to have a personal opinion. It is another to make that opinion known through words or actions, especially in a corporate setting.

 

That said, the email system is Eastman's. If a supervisor is reflecting corporate policy, the employee has no right to dictate its use; only to complain of its mis-use, and only to his supervisor or above.

 

If it is corporate policy to support "Coming Out Day", then the only recourse this gentleman could/would have would be a claim of some sort of harrassment. (That's a BIG stretch, btw)

 

Did he deserve to be fired? That is for the company to decide. This is not a matter of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment limits the power of GOVERNMENT, not private companies or individuals.

 

When you post something like this, you are asking for trouble.

 

 

He should be able to sue for wrongful dismissal and get a couple of years' pay at least. How can you fire someone who worked 23 years at a company because he finds homosexuality repugnant? There are religions which have the same views. Maybe he belongs to one of those. He didn't harass any individual. He just asked for his own space. There is a time and a place for sex. You should not be forced to have it shoved in your face at work if you don't want it.

[sprinter]

It is one thing to have a personal opinion. It is another to make that opinion known through words or actions, especially in a corporate setting.

 

That said, the email system is Eastman's. If a supervisor is reflecting corporate policy, the employee has no right to dictate its use; only to complain of its mis-use, and only to his supervisor or above.

 

If it is corporate policy to support "Coming Out Day", then the only recourse this gentleman could/would have would be a claim of some sort of harrassment. (That's a BIG stretch, btw)

 

Did he deserve to be fired? That is for the company to decide. This is not a matter of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment limits the power of GOVERNMENT, not private companies or individuals.

 

When you post something like this, you are asking for trouble.

 

This pretty much explains it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzp0S3yO1QA

[goinbroke2]

Being military and a supervisor of both military and civilian personnel, I've had PLENTY of "sharp" training. I am against homosexuals due to religous reasons, but understand my opinion is my opinion in the workplace.

 

When taking training it is always brought up that I must give special consessions to native americans/gays/anybody non-white/french speaking/women/etc. Yes it is a very sore point, but it is still government policy and must be adhered to.

 

I cannot legally express my personal opinions on matters I dislike if it refers to any of the above.

 

To return an e-mail so everybody see's it was just stupid and looking for trouble.

 

It would be like the tons of e-mail I get from the Base Chief's office regarding the "upcoming day of action for aboriginal peoples". If I returned an e-mail "to all" that I found it disgusting/wrong/etc I would be in front of the Major before coffee break!

 

 

This guy (although right) doesn't stand a chance in these politically correct times.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

 

POLICE sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may soon be made unemployed in the UK why?

 

Because Muslims don't like them because sniffer dogs offend them.

 

Also Muslims may not get screened for bombs Why?

 

The report follows trials of station security measures in the wake of the 2005 London suicide bomb attacks. In one trial, some female Muslims said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was tantamount to being forced to strip.

 

In another trial on the Heathrow Express platform at Paddington station in London, there were inst­ances when the body scan – which creates an image on a monitor – was considered unacceptable by female Muslims, the report said.

 

One Muslim woman complained: "Sometimes I wear clothing which is not so tight. It will be shown on (the monitor) and somebody is looking at it. It defeats the whole purpose of me covering up."

 

 

Critics said the complaints were just the latest example of minority religions trying to force their rules and morals on British society.

 

Tory MP Philip Davies said: "As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally."

 

News of the security setback came as the Government yesterday admitted that installing 100 per cent airport-style screening at rail and Tube stations was "not feasible".

 

The report concluded: "The use of sniffer dogs was generally problem­atic for Muslim respondents on rel­igious grounds if there was the potential for the dog to make direct contact with them."

 

When Muslims have washed for certain forms of worship, they would have to repeat the ritual if they came into contact with a dog.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/50071

 

 

Church of England VICARS mean while could face up to seven years in jail for simply preaching from the Bible at church in the UK under Government plans to criminalise incitement of homosexual hatred.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/2...er-gay-hate-law

Edited June 27, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

He should be able to sue for wrongful dismissal and get a couple of years' pay at least. How can you fire someone who worked 23 years at a company because he finds homosexuality repugnant? There are religions which have the same views. Maybe he belongs to one of those. He didn't harass any individual. He just asked for his own space. There is a time and a place for sex. You should not be forced to have it shoved in your face at work if you don't want it.

 

Would you feel different if he had held up a sign in the middle of the office that says, "I think homosexuality is disgusting and offensive"?

 

How is sending an email to a thousand people working in the same office any different?

 

Personal opinion should be kept to oneself. I would support him if he only sent that email to his supervisor, but he overreacted when he sent it to everyone.

 

The company's recourse is the company's business.

[RangerM]

This pretty much explains it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzp0S3yO1QA

 

Perhaps you'd prefer this YouTube video.

[Trimdingman]

Would you feel different if he had held up a sign in the middle of the office that says, "I think homosexuality is disgusting and offensive"?

 

How is sending an email to a thousand people working in the same office any different?

 

Personal opinion should be kept to oneself. I would support him if he only sent that email to his supervisor, but he overreacted when he sent it to everyone.

 

The company's recourse is the company's business.

 

 

He said that being sent an e-mail about sex was disgusting and offensive. He is not the one who brought up the subject. I come to work to do a job, not to have peoples' sexual preferences shoved in my face.

[RangerM]

He said that being sent an e-mail about sex was disgusting and offensive. He is not the one who brought up the subject. I come to work to do a job, not to have peoples' sexual preferences shoved in my face.

 

I'm with you, except I think there is a piece of missing info that both of us are missing.

 

Let's assume that he simply responded to the email (to 1,000 people). I'm sure you've answered an email and noticed in the subject header is "Re:". If the original email said something about Coming Out Day, then the email subject header said "Re: Coming Out Day"

 

Even if he deleted the old email text that is often stuck in the new email, then his email may have looked something like:

Re: Coming Out Day

 

Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive.

Thank you,

 

Rolf Szabo

 

He may have been referring to sex in a non homo- or hetero- way. The article is vague on this. BUT, given the fact that this "type of information" seamingly referred to the information contained in the memo, it is not unreasonable to assume that it was homosexuality he was referring to; especially considering the fact that the article identifies the memo as being "pro-homosexual".

 

Like I said, it is the company's decision on what disciplinary action they take. Was he given the opportunity to either apologize or explain his meaning? The article didn't address this.

Edited June 27, 2008 by RangerM

[Trimdingman]

I'm with you, except I think there is a piece of missing info that both of us are missing.

 

Let's assume that he simply responded to the email (to 1,000 people). I'm sure you've answered an email and noticed in the subject header is "Re:". If the original email said something about Coming Out Day, then the email subject header said "Re: Coming Out Day"

 

Even if he deleted the old email text that is often stuck in the new email, then his email may have looked something like:

 

 

He may have been referring to sex in a non homo- or hetero- way. The article is vague on this. BUT, given the fact that this "type of information" seamingly referred to the information contained in the memo, it is not unreasonable to assume that it was homosexuality he was referring to; especially considering the fact that the article identifies the memo as being "pro-homosexual".

 

Like I said, it is the company's decision on what disciplinary action they take. Was he given the opportunity to either apologize or explain his meaning? The article didn't address this.

 

 

I know that in Canada, people have rights that go along with longevity of employment. You can't just fire somebody who has worked for you for 23 years on a whim. A court judge would award a large severance. How can you legislate people's beliefs? Where is the freedom? Many people have harmless sexual perversions. I don't want to know about them, especially before lunch break.

[RangerM]

I know that in Canada, people have rights that go along with longevity of employment. You can't just fire somebody who has worked for you for 23 years on a whim. A court judge would award a large severance. How can you legislate people's beliefs? Where is the freedom? Many people have harmless sexual perversions. I don't want to know about them, especially before lunch break.

 

You can't legislate beliefs, but then again a company differs from a legislature. A company cannot impose its will on you with deadly force.

 

I can agree that this type of corporate policy is improper, and ALL corporations should be neutral on policy that has nothing to do with their core business.

[taxman100]

Anytime I get an e-mail from HR where I work, I know it is going to be completely worthless, so I delete it without looking.

 

99% of them are useless crap like this one sent out at Eastman Kodak.

 

The guy should not have been fired, but he should have also realized Corporate America doesn't want people who think for themselves, or have any other values than selling their soul to the corporation. So, he should have just kept his cool, and considered the source.

[Trimdingman]

Anytime I get an e-mail from HR where I work, I know it is going to be completely worthless, so I delete it without looking.

 

99% of them are useless crap like this one sent out at Eastman Kodak.

 

The guy should not have been fired, but he should have also realized Corporate America doesn't want people who think for themselves, or have any other values than selling their soul to the corporation. So, he should have just kept his cool, and considered the source.

 

 

Maybe he is not "artistic" enough for the photography business, and they are trying to get rid of him.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Trimdingman