Comments on: Marriage Equality and Red Herrings

By: Tin Man

Tin Man — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:14:56 +0000

It’s not harrassment to talk about your personal life.

By: RAh

RAh — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:41:12 +0000

The women has baiting him since he was uncomfortable with the homosexuality. So who was harassing who? She stated her personal business about her lesbian fiance. And kept push this man’s comfort zone.

If he bring suit I believe he can make a case of harrassment based on his religus views.

By: libhomo

libhomo — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:18:39 +0000

Vadala certainly deserved to be fired.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:39:41 +0000

I’m amused that he was provoked into stating his views, that he was compelled, that he was under the influence of some outside force and was not capable of choosing not to share his “traditional beliefs” that homosexuality is “bad stuff.”

I’ve not seen any comment on the fact that the workplace is not the appropriate venue for discussions of one’s personal life or theological/political beliefs.

Under other circumstances, on one’s own time, a person has the option of disengaging from whatever conversation he or she does not wish to participate in; when you’re at work, you can’t just leave to get away from annoying people. At work, no one should be subjected to the details of other people’s private lives or their ignorant bigoted beliefs. People have no sense of boundaries and propriety any more.

By: Tin Man

Tin Man — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:16:52 +0000

Peter, this is a subtle point, but here is why the letter mentions that marriage is legal in Massachusetts. According to the letter, Vadala states that he was provoked into telling the female employee his opinion because she “repeatedly and without provocation presented her view on the topic of homosexuality by referencing her so-called fiancée.” The letter points out that she was not “presenting her view” on the topic of homosexuality; she was stating a fact, that she has a female fiancée — just as, if they were not married, she would be stating the fact that she had a female partner. She would not be stating “a belief” that she had a partner; she would be stating a fact. Suppose she and her partner were not married, but they had adopted a child together, or one of them had given birth and the other had legally adopted the child as a second parent. Suppose, in that situation, that she kept mentioning her child? She wouldn’t be “stating a belief” that they had a child together; she would be stating a fact that this was legally their child.

Vadala is basically saying, “She started it by bringing it up.” But that would be the case whether or not marriage were legal, because having a spouse or a life partner, or having a child with someone, is not a “belief”; it is a life status, “factual in nature.” Mass Resistance is trying to make this about marriage, when marriage really doesn’t affect the situation at all.

Also, as to your last statement: there are plenty of non-gay supporters of civil rights.

By: homer

homer — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:51:49 +0000

So sick of this Christian martyr garbage. I had a temporary employee working for me who was so stupid he kept saying anti-gay bullcrap in front of me. I had one of the other workers tell him I was gay (how he didn’t know confounds me). The anti-gay crap stopped, but I never hired him again.

By: Peter martin

Peter martin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:34:45 +0000

Soory , it should say “employees express their personnal….
take out the (if an)

By: Peter martin

Peter martin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:33:00 +0000

In the firing letter, it says that “Marriage is legal in Massachusetts”. It is used as a justification for his firing. If an Employees express their personal opinion about each other religion, behaviors, habits, politics etc… every day. It is not a reason to fire them. Now if you are in a position of authority with the power to fire a subordonate, you usually better keep your mouth shut. The fired employee here had not such authority.
I am sure Brookstone will be sued and will have to pay unless Mass judges are all gays and play with the discrimination laws

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:44:12 +0000

Excellent post.

It’s not about logic or reason with these people. “Mass Resistance” (as if they were partisans fighting off a Nazi invasion or something) and their ilk are motivated by nothing more than hate, irrational hate wrapped in religion. And you can’t reason or have dialogue or find common ground with those consumed with such irrational hatred. They will take anything and spin it to support their agenda.

With only the bare details as you give them here, though, I don’t think Vadala should have been fired. But since he was, they should also have fired the female coworker. It sounds to me like she is guilty of harassment.

By: Vadala follow-up: untangling the issues (Jarrett House North)

Vadala follow-up: untangling the issues (Jarrett House North) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:28:12 +0000

[...] use of Vadala’s firing to protest gay marriage is, as the Tin Man has put it, completely beside the point. This discussion would have come up without Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage–Vadala would [...]