• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay worker claims Facebook 'like' got him fired

Deuce said:
Swap out "gay" with "Christian" and tell me if you still think the employee is in the wrong. (assume for the sake of argument that he was fired because of this information and not the missed work)
Click to expand...

Cant base lawsuits on assumption. I doubt this lawsuit goes very far. Either the guy produces the email and they settle it quietly because his employer knows they are screwed, or he doesnt produce and he doesnt have a case.
 
muciti said:
Cant base lawsuits on assumption. I doubt this lawsuit goes very far. Either the guy produces the email and they settle it quietly because his employer knows they are screwed, or he doesnt produce and he doesnt have a case.
Click to expand...

Why is it whenever any one predicts a legal case here, they far more often than not end up being wrong? Have you read the filings in the case? If not then how the hell are you able to make anything like an accurate prediction?
 
If this guy was indeed fired for liking that page, he does indeed have a case and I fully support him. However, I will say that as a general rule; if people don't want their personal lives looked into, they shouldn't post them on the internet. I realize that we all have a right to privacy, but social networking has led to this kind of activity. Don't be surprised if people have information about you that you'd rather keep private if you post them so carelessly online.
 
Connery said:
It is simply good policy to keep one's sexual views private lest they become fodder for discussion in the office. A very uncomfortable situation, at best. It may lead to a "hostile work environment".
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "sexual views"? Supporting a "Two Dads" group isn't a sexual view, it's a socio-political one. Being homosexual isn't a view at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication here seems to that homosexuals should keep their lives in the dark from everyone else which strikes me as a dangerous concept. It implies there is something fundamentally wrong with it and will only serve to make it worse should it be discovered (or wrongly assumed about someone else).

It's certainly true that in some social environments (including the work place), all sorts of characteristics, opinions of actions can be a source of conflict but it's impossible to keep all such things private. An individual can choose to keep aspects of their life private if they wish but there shouldn't be any expectation to do so and any bullying or mistreatment as a result should be stamped on promptly and firmly.
 
Connery said:
It is simply good policy to keep one's sexual views private lest they become fodder for discussion in the office. A very uncomfortable situation, at best. It may lead to a "hostile work environment".
Click to expand...

Does that include straight couples? If so, that would mean you or your co-worker should not mention nor talk about a girldriend or wife or let it be known you have one.

Sorry, but that is ridiculous.

If this person was being harrassed for liking that page, and I have doubts because I haven't seen all the sides yet, this boss is one giant A-Hole and should be fired for the harrassment.

I have seen stories about bosses harrassing gays end up the boss was really harrassing the person and I have seen them end up the employee is just an idiot playing the gay card. It works both ways, but either way a person should not have to keep things so private just because they are gay whereas people that are straight don't have to.
 
Produce the emails of STFU is what I say! I wonder what he was doing for those 37 days.. Scratch that, no I don't.. :)

Tim-
 
Redress said:
Why is it whenever any one predicts a legal case here, they far more often than not end up being wrong? Have you read the filings in the case? If not then how the hell are you able to make anything like an accurate prediction?
Click to expand...

I have read the same article that you have. Or did you read something more than the article?
 
Hicup said:
Produce the emails of STFU is what I say! I wonder what he was doing for those 37 days.. Scratch that, no I don't.. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

I doubt you would sympathize with him even if he did.
 
Really, what's needed legislatively is a comprehensive ban against discriminating against or firing an employee on ANY basis other than poor or non-performance of clearly defined work duties.

Unless an employer has a clearly stated rule against using company computers during break times and/or very specific rules about what internet content may be viewed on company computers, then it's patently illegal to fire someone for their off-the-clock internet use.

Considering how heavily employment law bends over backwards to give employers all kinds of outs and plausible deniability with regards to discrimination and harassment, an employer really has to do something spectacularly stupid to actually run afoul of the law. IF the plaintiff's account is accurate, then this would indeed be an example of just such spectacular stupidity on the part of the employer.
 
Luna Tick said:
He was ordered onto medical leave and then fired for taking medical leave. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

I was fired once for getting sick.

I had a load going from Denver to Abequer, albek, albequerque, al.........Albuquerque and 4 hours after leaving I started to get the headache and the a heavy head. 5 hours later I woke my codriver up and said I'm gonna pass out. It was the warp-9 flue. He drove the rest of the way to that capital city of New Mexico and I put myself into a hotel room, payed for it myself. 2 days of moaning and groaning later I called the boss saying I was ready to go back to work and he said I was no longer employed there.

What my boss wanted was for me to bounce around in the back, while constantly vomiting, while my co-driver illegally used my logbook hours. I denied him the opportunity for more profit, I'm soooo bad.

Good thing about truck driving job market is that I took a 2 month vacation and then when I felt like coming back to work I only spent about 2 hours finding another job, a better job.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Just because a gay person was fired doesnt mean they were fired because they were gay. Missing 37 consecutive days from work sounds like grounds for termination.

The guy claims there are emails. I'd like to see that before I jump on the this OMG THIS IS HORRIBLE bandwagon.
Click to expand...

This, seriously.
 
muciti said:
Just because a gay person was fired doesnt mean they were fired because they were gay. Missing 37 consecutive days from work sounds like grounds for termination.

The guy claims there are emails. I'd like to see that before I jump on the this OMG THIS IS HORRIBLE bandwagon.
Click to expand...

While this is true, he also claims that the harassment and negative evaluations began way before he missed those 37 days.
 
Your Star said:
No, it should be up to the people who have a problem with it to shut their mouths, and realize that they are working, and not cause a problem. It is not up to gay people to hide who they are because someone may be uncomfortable with it.
Click to expand...

It is up to ALL parties to act in a professional matter. Any social issues should be left at the door by all parties, as they are not an aspect of the job or job performance.
 
HonestJoe said:
What do you mean by "sexual views"? Supporting a "Two Dads" group isn't a sexual view, it's a socio-political one. Being homosexual isn't a view at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication here seems to that homosexuals should keep their lives in the dark from everyone else which strikes me as a dangerous concept. It implies there is something fundamentally wrong with it and will only serve to make it worse should it be discovered (or wrongly assumed about someone else).

It's certainly true that in some social environments (including the work place), all sorts of characteristics, opinions of actions can be a source of conflict but it's impossible to keep all such things private. An individual can choose to keep aspects of their life private if they wish but there shouldn't be any expectation to do so and any bullying or mistreatment as a result should be stamped on promptly and firmly.
Click to expand...


Nope I said sexual views.
 
Deuce said:
Swap out "gay" with "Christian" and tell me if you still think the employee is in the wrong. (assume for the sake of argument that he was fired because of this information and not the missed work)
Click to expand...
I am not getting into this nonsense. I have a stake in whether this man was "fired" for the days of absence or there was a "hostile environment" which compelled him to leave.
 
TheNextEra said:
Does that include straight couples? If so, that would mean you or your co-worker should not mention nor talk about a girldriend or wife or let it be known you have one.

Sorry, but that is ridiculous.

If this person was being harrassed for liking that page, and I have doubts because I haven't seen all the sides yet, this boss is one giant A-Hole and should be fired for the harrassment.

I have seen stories about bosses harrassing gays end up the boss was really harrassing the person and I have seen them end up the employee is just an idiot playing the gay card. It works both ways, but either way a person should not have to keep things so private just because they are gay whereas people that are straight don't have to.
Click to expand...


I am talking about whether he was compelled to leave due to a "hostile environment" or he was "fired" for the days he was absent.
 
Connery said:
Nope I said sexual views.
Click to expand...


In that case, is there some additional evidence you've accessed that was not mentioned in the (brief, superficial) article?!?

I ask because the article linked in the OP contains absolutely no mention of the plaintiff's sexual views.

Hell, the article doesn't mention ANYONE's sexual views. The alleged bigoted emails and harassment on the part of the employer, if they occurred, aren't sexual views either; they would be views about gay PEOPLE.
 
cmakaioz said:
In that case, is there some additional evidence you've accessed that was not mentioned in the (brief, superficial) article?!?

I ask because the article linked in the OP contains absolutely no mention of the plaintiff's sexual views.

Hell, the article doesn't mention ANYONE's sexual views. The alleged bigoted emails and harassment on the part of the employer, if they occurred, aren't sexual views either; they would be views about gay PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

I was speaking generally. Like I said I am not interested in nonsense.
 
StillBallin75 said:
While this is true, he also claims that the harassment and negative evaluations began way before he missed those 37 days.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's possible that his performance went down? Hell I "like" quite a few things on facebook. At least one or two a week. If my performance reviews go south does it really make sense to assume its because of something I "liked"? I think its equally if not more possible that this guy's performance was slipping, his boss started getting on him about it and he (like so many people today) started looking for something else to blame and came up with his own sexuality.
 
muciti said:
Don't you think it's possible that his performance went down? Hell I "like" quite a few things on facebook. At least one or two a week. If my performance reviews go south does it really make sense to assume its because of something I "liked"? I think its equally if not more possible that this guy's performance was slipping, his boss started getting on him about it and he (like so many people today) started looking for something else to blame and came up with his own sexuality.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm open to all possibilities. But that doesn't explain what he claims were his boss's derogatory comments about his orientation.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Sure, I'm open to all possibilities. But that doesn't explain what he claims were his boss's derogatory comments about his orientation.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it's just a claim. I am not saying the guy wasn't discriminated against, but you can't just start firing people, and giving people money or anything just because they claim something. Emails are very easily tracked.
 
muciti said:
I agree. But it's just a claim. I am not saying the guy wasn't discriminated against, but you can't just start firing people, and giving people money or anything just because they claim something. Emails are very easily tracked.
Click to expand...

I agree. If he has a case, by all means he should release the e-mails.
 
In the article, I only see the part where "when his boss found out he was gay..." So exactly "how" did the boss find this out? Was it through facebook? This isn't specifically stated. If he shared his login name with his boss, that's already a bad move. His fault. If the boss snooped on his facebook without permission, that's a definite privacy violation. At work, people should protect themselves by keeping their facebook info private. Or better yet, not use work time to fiddle around in facebook where someone might see.

But man, 37 days missed at work? I'm surprised he kept his job as long as he did! The employer will lean on this detail heavily, and I think that alone might derail this guy's case.
 
Luna Tick said:
This is oh-so wrong on so many levels. We've got an employer snooping via Facebook into an employees personal life mining details that have nothing to do with job performance. We've got a job lost due to homophobia. We've got an employee with no first amendment right to even "like" a pro gay organization.

I'm this close to just deleting my Facebook account. I have my privacy options set high, but I suspect I could be hacked and penalized for some of my views. Employers are snooping so much that it's bringing down the value of a Facebook account.


Remainder of article:
Life Inc. - Gay worker claims Facebook 'like' got him fired
Click to expand...

You will love this part about Facebook...you can delete it, however any information you put on their website they own. They don't delete pictures. They don't delete your postings. The account is just put away, but all the info exists still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom