13-01-2004 09:31									#301
	Tired of ads?

quote: the confessors who assisted the culprit could reconcile him to the church and confess him sacramentally.

It is the admission of reconciliation, not the fire which would be saving them. Catholics cannot be confident of salvation, so they take steps to ensure that those who are within the body of the church receive last rites to absolve the sinner.

	13-01-2004 09:39									#302
	Increase Your PM Length

Actually, I'm intrigued by the passage that Molly posted behind their rationale against rejecting those who confess before being burned, from doing so out of fear, and not true repentence. This all begs the question, of what options one would face from the inquisitors. You could repent and then be burned, or stand firm and be burned. Not much choice on the matter.

As for Spiffor's example, can you see why they would be wrong in their reasoning? Even if those people were without sin, the executioners would be in the same position as those who crucified Christ.

	13-01-2004 09:41									#303
	Tired of ads?

OFF TOPIC

	13-01-2004 09:45									#304
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi As for Spiffor's example, can you see why they would be wrong in their reasoning?

I never said they were right in their reasoning. I merely said that killing for the sake of saving has been seen in Christian history. And I think we both agree it sucks.

	13-01-2004 09:49									#305
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

A pox on both your houses.

	13-01-2004 09:52									#306
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Isn't "off-topic" the very point of this forum?

	13-01-2004 09:58									#307
	Tired of ads?

I'm going to bed...I'd better have a PM from you in the morning, Frenchie!

	13-01-2004 10:03									#308
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You'll have one. Maybe not in the morning though (got to sleep too )

	13-01-2004 10:09									#309
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: And I think we both agree it sucks.

And that was the whole point. Can't have people thinking I agree with this sort of thing.

	13-01-2004 20:22									#310
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned The whole question here is did the employee have the right to protest the company policy on religious grounds. Since the quotes were directly from the bible, there is no question that the protest was motivated by religion and was based in religion. Religion is protected under the Civil Rights Act. This protection extends to protests of company policy based on religious grounds according to the Ninth Circuit itself. They simply disapproved of the manner of this protest.

What in Christianity states that you can not tolerate gay co-workers and treat them equally im the workplace? I bet this guy does not keep kosher, yet the bible demands it of believers.... NO, his religion does not state he must be an ass to gay coworkers, which he was doing-this is an example of his personal bigotry cloaked as a religious issue, and the court saw thorugh it.

	13-01-2004 21:23									#311
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov What about OTHER EMPLOYEES, Ned? You can move him anywhere, but other EMPLOYEES will still SEE it. Nothing in the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that an employer has to tolerate ANY form of religious expression. The man said he did it to hurt people, for pete's sake!

Your point, and the court's point, was about customers! Now you change the topic.

I agree that protesting a company policy in a manner that can be viewed by customers is not acceptable. But protesting the policy in a manner that can be viewed by fellow employees is critical if there is to be any truly effective right to speak.

quote: No, Ned, I'm not telling him anything. I was just making an observation that if he professes to love the sinner and hate the sin, his protests are incongruous with said belief, becauser HP's campaign said NOTHING about accepting the "sin," but rather said to treat the "sinner" with respect. I'm just noting his hypocrisy.

IIRC, the employee said nothing of the kind. He rather said that his religion required him to confront sin that they may repent and be saved.

quote: As MtG pointed out, employees don't have a right to protest company policy in any manner they choose--if it's disruptive or hurtful, employers don't have to tolerate it. The 1964 Civil Rights act doesn't give people carte blanche to pepper their workspace with calls to kill people.

This is the critical issue in the case. The question is whether posting the biblical verses in one's own cube in a manner visible to other employees (the customer bit is just a bit much as I described above and shows just how mendacious the Ninth Cir. panel was) is within the communications privilege.

	13-01-2004 21:45									#312
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov No, it says he can't post things that call for violent acts if his employer objects.

I saw nothing in the opinion that said anything about the employee calling for violent acts, let alone basing the decision on this point.

quote: If I worked at a company run by Christians, and I posted "Christians are evil and should be killed" over my cube, I would be guilty of creating a hostile work environment and they'd have every right to fire me for refusing to remove the words.

True, as Religion, as opposed to homosexuality, is protected.

Also, there is the issue of violence. A call for violence exceeds all privileges accorded free speech.

quote: Again, where in the 1964 Civil Rights act does it say any form of expression of one's belief is acceptable? No where, Ned. It just says you can't discriminate against people for holding beliefs. It doesn't say you have to allow them to express them as they see fit.

The right to protest based on religion has not been expressly recognized in any case that I have seen. However, the Ninth Cir. did say they would tend to uphold this right had the protest been less "hurtful," implying the right does exist under the Civil Rights act of 1964.

quote: HP didn't have a problem with his beliefs, or his protesting their policy OUTSIDE HP. He wrote letters about it to newspapers and had that nice bumper sticker, but they didn't care about those things. What HP didn't like was his manner of expressing his beliefs by posting a Biblical passage that calls for killing people. They asked him to stop, he refused. They went BEYOND the needed limits of patience. He continued to defy their orders. So he lost his job.

Perhaps (the killing part). But the opinion was not based on any call for violence as exceeding the employee's right to protest. It was based on the fact that fellow employees could see the biblical passages and be "hurt." That is different.

quote: The moral? If a company enacts LEGAL policies you don't like, you can leave. But nothing, not even the 1964 Civil Rights Act, gives you the right to post hateful dogma all over your office so your employers and employees and customers have to see it.

This appears to be the result of the holding, indeed. But, it truly totally suppresses the right to protest altogether as virtually any protest will "hurt" some fellow employee benefitted by the company policy. Gay marriage was an example given by the Ninth Circuit itself as an example of legitimate protest. However, such a protest will "hurt" gays who would like to get married or who are married.

	13-01-2004 21:45									#313
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ned Your point, and the court's point, was about customers! Now you change the topic. I agree that protesting a company policy in a manner that can be viewed by customers is not acceptable. But protesting the policy in a manner that can be viewed by fellow employees is critical if there is to be any truly effective right to speak.

The appropriate manner of protest within the workplace is to go to HR and up the employee's chain of command - and once they've responded, that's it. There is no right to disrupt, be insubordinate, or otherwise (in the employer's reasonable interpretation) interfere actively or passively with the conduct of the business. The employee's only right to even be on the premises (except in public areas when they are open to the public) is in conjunction with his employment. What the employee does off campus and after hours is a different story, but during the course of work, he has one function - to do his job.

quote: quote: As MtG pointed out, employees don't have a right to protest company policy in any manner they choose--if it's disruptive or hurtful, employers don't have to tolerate it. The 1964 Civil Rights act doesn't give people carte blanche to pepper their workspace with calls to kill people. This is the critical issue in the case. The question is whether posting the biblical verses in one's own cube in a manner visible to other employees (the customer bit is just a bit much as I described above and shows just how mendacious the Ninth Cir. panel was) is within the communications privilege.

If it has the effect of harassing or intimidating any other employees or disrupting the workplace, no it is not. There is also no privilege to be insubordinate and refuse to follow the directives of one's supervisors. The appropriate way to continue the protest would be to take the verses down as directed by his managers, then file an EEOC or state analogue claim for religious discrimination (filing of the claim would have rendered him legally protected from retaliatory termination).

He chose not to do that, but instead, to be insubordinate by refusing a direct order of his managers, and continuing to be disruptive. If nothing else, the open refulsal to comply with management orders was grounds for termination. Any employee does that horseshit with me, and they're gone, then and there.

	13-01-2004 21:51									#314
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

MtG, in the end, you may be right that no one has the legal right or privilege to communicate disagreement with company policy to fellow employees at work.

But, that is not the tenor of the Ninth Cir. opinion which limited itself to holding that this protest was not privileged because it "hurt" fellow employees.

	13-01-2004 21:55									#315
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap What in Christianity states that you can not tolerate gay co-workers and treat them equally im the workplace? I bet this guy does not keep kosher, yet the bible demands it of believers.... NO, his religion does not state he must be an ass to gay coworkers, which he was doing-this is an example of his personal bigotry cloaked as a religious issue, and the court saw thorugh it.

Perhaps. But there was no allegation that the employee had harrassed or did anything else to a fellow employee.

It is clear, though, that there was something about the posters,not the policy, that triggered the protest as he offered to stop if they took down the posters.

	13-01-2004 21:58									#316
	Tired of ads?

It is hard to make any judgement here without knowing what the guy was protesting. What were the HP posters saying?

If, for example, they were graphic depictions of gay sex with the caption 'Fancy a ****?' then I would agree that he should protest them (wouldn't you?). I am fairly sure they wouldn't be though.

If they were posters which subtely request that all workers treat one another with respect, no matter what their religious of moral beliefs, then he had no grounds to protest. (In fact this is a typical Christian message.)

I suspect it was somewhere in between, and it may well be that he would then have grounds to protest the posters. If he did, he should have taken HP to court immediately rather than post his own 'messages'.

	13-01-2004 22:00									#317
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh If, for example, they were graphic depictions of gay sex with the caption 'Fancy a ****?' then I would agree that he should protest them (wouldn't you?). I am fairly sure they wouldn't be though.

	13-01-2004 22:02									#318
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Gad, is this thread STILL alive?!

That Jesus poster (pg. 10) looks sorta gay. Almost...homo-gay.

	13-01-2004 22:07									#319
	Increase Your PM Length

You should have been there when we had the Last Supper -- it was a fabulous party!!

	13-01-2004 22:12									#320
	Inflate your Upload Space

Rogan, I think his main objection was that posters (to him) went beyond a simple statement of tolerance, but confronted him with homosexuality in a manner that required a response.

Here is a quote from the case:

"Peterson was employed in the Boise, Idaho office of
Hewlett-Packard for almost 21 years prior to his termination.
The parties do not dispute that Peterson’s job performance
was satisfactory. The conflict between Peterson and Hewlett-
Packard arose when the company began displaying “diversity
posters” in its Boise office as one component of its workplace
diversity campaign. The first series consisted of five posters,
each showing a photograph of a Hewlett-Packard employee
above the caption “Black,” “Blonde,” “Old,” “Gay,” or “Hispanic.”
Posters in the second series included photographs of
the same five employees and a description of the featured
employee’s personal interests, as well as the slogan “Diversity
is Our Strength.”

Peterson describes himself as a “devout Christian,” who
believes that homosexual activities violate the commandments
contained in the Bible and that he has a duty “to expose evil
when confronted with sin.” In response to the posters that
read “Gay,” Peterson posted two Biblical scriptures on an
overhead bin in his work cubicle."

	13-01-2004 22:19									#321
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Peterson describes himself as a “devout Christian,” who believes that homosexual activities violate the commandments contained in the Bible and that he has a duty “to expose evil when confronted with sin.” In response to the posters that read “Gay,” Peterson posted two Biblical scriptures on an overhead bin in his work cubicle."

Which he meant to be seen publicly and which he has admitted were posted in order to offend- hence he was creating a hostile business environment (not only for co-workers but possible customers). When he did that he stepped too far- protest has limits in the workplace just as in real life- and he was told to stop. He did not, and thus was rightfully terminated. He had evry right to write to the company, perhaps write letters to editors and so forth complaining- but the way he complained, acting to insult people, was malicious, and when he refused to stop, he was insuboprdinate. He got canned rightfully. Don't you get that yet? Are you mired in the Nedaverse?

	13-01-2004 22:35									#322
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ned's still blithely ignoring the point that the thing that caused the problem was posting a passage calling for killing gays, and that he explicitely stated his intent was to hurt his coworkers who are gay. That's called harrassment, and under HP policy, it's prohibited. Note that it was ONLY this passage that sparked HP to take action. He previously posted other verses, and they met with no objection. It was Leviticus that was removed, which is the one that incites violence.

	13-01-2004 23:07									#323
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ned's still blithely ignoring the point that the thing that caused the problem was posting a passage calling for killing gays, and that he explicitely stated his intent was to hurt his coworkers who are gay. That's called harrassment, and under HP policy, it's prohibited. Note that it was ONLY this passage that sparked HP to take action. He previously posted other verses, and they met with no objection. It was Leviticus that was removed, which is the one that incites violence.

If thats true, it changes things slightly (for me anyway) since it means that HP were trying to allow him some freedom to dissent. How important is the Leviticus verse in this context?

	13-01-2004 23:18									#324
	Suffering from ads?

BG, I agree that the propriety of the protest was central to the result as the court seemed to recognize that Peterson had the right to protest.

I read a story that the petition to the Supremes will emphasize that Peterson only quoted the Bible itself in a manner that was intended to communicate to fellow employees. What he "intended" privately should not be at issue. The question is whether quoting from the Bible itself is objectively hurtful, disruptive and beyond any communication privilege.

	13-01-2004 23:31									#325
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Why does G*D hate male homosexuality? For most of the laws, we can see practical purposes behind them. Pigs eat feces and carry trycaonsis, shellfish can have red tide, the prohibition against eating owl was a carry over from Egypt. Most of he law has to do with maknig sure people don't harm one another o harm themselves. So why does God, as Rev Phelps so bluntly puts it, "HATE FAGS!"

	13-01-2004 23:37									#326
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Since you're so interested in something other than the truth, I'll leave you with the thought that while he may "hate" male homosexuals ( ) He does love lesbians though.

	14-01-2004 02:28									#327
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Might want to brush up on your scripture if you think that's the case Dinodoc. No distinction is made between gay men and lesbian women.

	14-01-2004 02:32									#328
	Put an end to popups!

So you're saying God doesn't love lesbians, Ben? Harsh.

	14-01-2004 03:15									#329
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov So you're saying God doesn't love lesbians, Ben? Harsh.

He's following the example set by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gingrich- and an unlamented former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, who although claiming to have been visited by god in his kitchen, and describing gays and lesbians as swirling in a cesspool of their own depravity, was unaware that god had kept the fact of his daughter's lesbianism from him. Perhaps god was being tactful, and didn't want to hurt his feelings.

I've never actually swirled in a cesspool, although I have visited a Victorian water pumping station and a tidal mill. Perhaps I could swirl in a jacuzzi of my own depravity, or a hot tub.

	14-01-2004 04:07									#330
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Might want to brush up on your scripture if you think that's the case Dinodoc. No distinction is made between gay men and lesbian women.

I don't even think that God hates Boris no matter how much he might like to think so but even if we were to follow the interpretation he suggests the Bible only mentions male/male sex in that way and never speaks specifically of female/female sex.