Mass. employee opposes homosexual opinion, loses job

[Degenerate Democrats]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=757320

An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because of his Christian beliefs.

The situation involves a manager from another shop telling Peter
Vadala of her impending wedding to another woman. Vedala did not
immediately react, nor did he provoke his superior to discuss
the issue further. However, after being approached multiple
times, he did later express the view of his faith toward
homosexual conduct. A short time later, he heard from the
chain's human resources department.

"I was fired from my job," Vadala reports. "The reason wasn't
that I didn't do my job correctly. It was because I expressed my
belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was
fired."

In Massachusetts, the state anti-discrimination law provides
special protection for homosexuals, and that results in
silencing any opposition.

"Basically, if you work for any company in Massachusetts, if you
work for any business, they can fire you for expressing your
beliefs as a Christian." The former Brookstone employee iterates
that this can happen "even if other people are expressing
beliefs to the contrary, which [the manager] did by bringing up
her so-called female fiancé."

In the termination letter Vadala received, his actions were
reported as "harassment," and his comments were deemed
"inappropriate and unprofessional."

"I'm a little upset that I got fired because I expressed my
belief after being countered with this superior's belief
multiple times."

Vadala contends that if homosexual marriage becomes legal in
other states, people will risk their jobs if they express their
sincere, Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong.


The bigotry of Democrats in action.

[Pat Magroyne]

A discussion has already started here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.homosexuality/browse_frm/thread/25c7c2f215866c91/0092812ca916ae7e#0092812ca916ae7e

[Dysperdis]

Degenerate Democrats wrote:

Fixed your subject line for ya.
--
Society, like water, needs to move and change to remain fresh. To keep
it from doing so is to allow it to become stagnant and malodorous. The
religious right would have us all living in a swamp to assuage their own
fears.

”The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you
shine on it, the more it will contract.” –Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"Never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god and says it's
absolute truth" -Voltaire, "/God Thinks/"

http://dysperdis.wordpress.com/

[Jim Sumner]

Post by Degenerate Democrats
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=757320
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because of his Christian beliefs.
The situation involves a manager from another shop telling Peter
Vadala of her impending wedding to another woman. Vedala did not
immediately react, nor did he provoke his superior to discuss
the issue further. However, after being approached multiple
times, he did later express the view of his faith toward
homosexual conduct. A short time later, he heard from the
chain's human resources department.
"I was fired from my job," Vadala reports. "The reason wasn't
that I didn't do my job correctly. It was because I expressed my
belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was
fired."
In Massachusetts, the state anti-discrimination law provides
special protection for homosexuals, and that results in
silencing any opposition.
"Basically, if you work for any company in Massachusetts, if you
work for any business, they can fire you for expressing your
beliefs as a Christian." The former Brookstone employee iterates
that this can happen "even if other people are expressing
beliefs to the contrary, which [the manager] did by bringing up
her so-called female fiancé."
In the termination letter Vadala received, his actions were
reported as "harassment," and his comments were deemed
"inappropriate and unprofessional."
"I'm a little upset that I got fired because I expressed my
belief after being countered with this superior's belief
multiple times."
Vadala contends that if homosexual marriage becomes legal in
other states, people will risk their jobs if they express their
sincere, Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong.
The bigotry of Democrats in action.

Republicans would fire someone for not supporting Israel, what's the
difference? Republicans are hypocrites.

[Wayne]

Post by Degenerate Democrats
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=757320
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because of his Christian beliefs.
The situation involves a manager from another shop telling Peter
Vadala of her impending wedding to another woman. Vedala did not
immediately react, nor did he provoke his superior to discuss
the issue further. However, after being approached multiple
times, he did later express the view of his faith toward
homosexual conduct. A short time later, he heard from the
chain's human resources department.
"I was fired from my job," Vadala reports. "The reason wasn't
that I didn't do my job correctly. It was because I expressed my
belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was
fired."
In Massachusetts, the state anti-discrimination law provides
special protection for homosexuals, and that results in
silencing any opposition.
"Basically, if you work for any company in Massachusetts, if you
work for any business, they can fire you for expressing your
beliefs as a Christian." The former Brookstone employee iterates
that this can happen "even if other people are expressing
beliefs to the contrary, which [the manager] did by bringing up
her so-called female fiancé."
In the termination letter Vadala received, his actions were
reported as "harassment," and his comments were deemed
"inappropriate and unprofessional."
"I'm a little upset that I got fired because I expressed my
belief after being countered with this superior's belief
multiple times."
Vadala contends that if homosexual marriage becomes legal in
other states, people will risk their jobs if they express their
sincere, Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong.
The bigotry of Democrats in action.

<<
<< Republicans would fire someone for not supporting Israel, what's the
<<difference? Republicans are hypocrites.
-
And you undoubtedly celebrated in the streets when a muslim attacked Ft.
Hood.

[Jim Sumner]

Post by Degenerate Democrats
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=757320
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because of his Christian beliefs.
The situation involves a manager from another shop telling Peter
Vadala of her impending wedding to another woman. Vedala did not
immediately react, nor did he provoke his superior to discuss
the issue further. However, after being approached multiple
times, he did later express the view of his faith toward
homosexual conduct. A short time later, he heard from the
chain's human resources department.
"I was fired from my job," Vadala reports. "The reason wasn't
that I didn't do my job correctly. It was because I expressed my
belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was
fired."
In Massachusetts, the state anti-discrimination law provides
special protection for homosexuals, and that results in
silencing any opposition.
"Basically, if you work for any company in Massachusetts, if you
work for any business, they can fire you for expressing your
beliefs as a Christian." The former Brookstone employee iterates
that this can happen "even if other people are expressing
beliefs to the contrary, which [the manager] did by bringing up
her so-called female fiancé."
In the termination letter Vadala received, his actions were
reported as "harassment," and his comments were deemed
"inappropriate and unprofessional."
"I'm a little upset that I got fired because I expressed my
belief after being countered with this superior's belief
multiple times."
Vadala contends that if homosexual marriage becomes legal in
other states, people will risk their jobs if they express their
sincere, Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong.
The bigotry of Democrats in action.

<<
<<  Republicans would fire someone for not supporting Israel, what's the
<<difference? Republicans are hypocrites.
-
And you undoubtedly celebrated in the streets when a muslim attacked Ft.
Hood.

Typical NeoCon Fox News fan robot response.

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

Good riddance to PUTRID rubbish.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

On Those Who Post ANONYMOUSLY...

Post by Degenerate Democrats
The ... bastard slapped the 80-year-old woman] and knocked her
down. If I was there, i would have knocked [him] out after such a
cowardly display.

"No, you wouldn't have. By the time you managed to find a mask
to cover your face, gloves to make sure you didn't leave any finger-
prints, a new pair of shoes to disguise your footprints, a gauze mask
to make certain you didn't leave behind any DNA-containing spittle,
and a burqua to cover up everything -- just in case -- the incident
would have long been over.

"Coward."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And ---

"Bravely spoken by someone who not only dares not use his real
name, who not only beyond that employs an anonymous remailer --
but who, to be really, really certain that no one can ever connect
him with his bravely-expressed opinions, sets the X-No-Archive
flag as well.

"Tell us, little one, is there anything you believe in strongly
enough to stand up for?"

-- Cary Kittrell <***@afone.as.arizona.edu>,
on 11-19-08 and 11-3-08, repectively.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Wayne]

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:43 -0800,

Post by Wayne

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

True. So he's not in jail.

But publicly spewing bigotry IS a FIREABLE offense.

So he very PROPERLY got fired.

Good riddance to putrid rubbish!

[Enos Penvy]

On Nov 10, 11:46 am, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:43 -0800,

   An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

    ...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

    So what.  It isn't a crime to hate.

     True. So he's not in jail.
     But publicly spewing bigotry IS a FIREABLE offense.

Yep. These wingnuts somehow believe that their protection from
governmental prosecution for spouting their mouths off extends to the
private workplace, and that they should be able to say whatever they
want in the workplace (e.g., to the boss: "You're a fucking asswipe
and your wife is a whore!") without repercussion! LOL!!!!

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:12:22 -0800 (PST),

Post by Enos Penvy

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>

   An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

    ...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

    So what.  It isn't a crime to hate.

     True. So he's not in jail.
     But publicly spewing bigotry IS a FIREABLE offense.

Yep. These wingnuts somehow believe that their protection from
governmental prosecution for spouting their mouths off extends to the
private workplace, and that they should be able to say whatever they
want in the workplace (e.g., to the boss: "You're a fucking asswipe
and your wife is a whore!") without repercussion! LOL!!!!

Right. This is a good REMINDER that ALL bigots are IGNORANT.

Bigotry and intelligence are mutually-exclusive.

"Intelligent homophobe" is an oxymoron.

Just like "intelligent racist."

[Wayne]

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:43 -0800,

Post by Wayne

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

True. So he's not in jail.
But publicly spewing bigotry IS a FIREABLE offense.
So he very PROPERLY got fired.
Good riddance to putrid rubbish!

If you read the story, the guy only expressed his views after repeatedly
being asked for them. And in the report, he didn't appear to have gone off
the deep end in expressing the opinion.

Think about it Craig...you don't really want to live in a country that has
speech restrictions to that level. You wouldn't be able to leave Iowa on a
vacation without getting arrested!

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Wayne

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:45:43 -0800,

   An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

    ...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

    So what.  It isn't a crime to hate.

    True. So he's not in jail.
    But publicly spewing bigotry IS a FIREABLE offense.
    So he very PROPERLY got fired.
    Good riddance to putrid rubbish!

If you read the story, the guy only expressed his views after repeatedly
being asked for them.

Well, no. In reading the termination letter, we see that the wedding
wasn't actually discussed at all. The incident began with the
manager, during normal conversation, made the statement that her
fiancee would be picking her up.

Peter Vadala's issue is that she mentioned her fiancee about four
times during the course of the workday.

And that's it. No mention of sexual behavior, no discussion of a
wedding. He was simply "offended" because the affianced was of the
same sex.

Post by Wayne
 And in the report, he didn't appear to have gone off
the deep end in expressing the opinion.

The termination letter differs from Peter Vadala's rather ridiculous
claim that he said, "Homosexuality, that's 'bad stuff'". I mean, who
SAYS that? "Bad stuff"??? Red flag. In the termination letter, it
is stated that he called the manager "deviant". He also told HR that
he thought her to be "deviant", and even put it in writing!!

Even calling it "bad stuff" would be enough, though, especially if he
actually DID state that his objection was religious. That's imposing
one's religious beliefs on another, in the workplace. The freedom of
religion includes a freedom FROM religion.

Peter Vadala violated the company's policies and was terminated as a
result.

Post by Wayne
Think about it Craig...you don't really want to live in a country that has
speech restrictions to that level.

This isn't a governmental restriction of speech, but rather a private
workplace policy.

Insulting a coworker (who also was his superior). What company would
WANT someone like that in their workplace? Would YOU? Would you want
an anti-Jewish or anti-black person working in your place of business
-- where Jews and blacks work -- spouting off about how Jews are going
to hell and how blacks are inferior to whites? REALLY?

[Dysperdis]

Post by Wayne

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.
--
Society, like water, needs to move and change to remain fresh. To keep
it from doing so is to allow it to become stagnant and malodorous. The
religious right would have us all living in a swamp to assuage their own
fears.

”The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you
shine on it, the more it will contract.” –Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"Never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god and says it's
absolute truth" -Voltaire, "/God Thinks/"

http://dysperdis.wordpress.com/

[Wayne]

Post by Dysperdis

Post by Wayne

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Dysperdis

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

   An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

  ...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what.  It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope.  You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved.  What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked.

Ummm... why didn't Peter Vadala do exactly what you're saying? Hmm?
Then, there would have been no incident, and he'd still have his job.

  In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.

What, are you in second grade? "Don't tattle!" Or a gang? "Don't
rat!"

Kinda immature.

Following company procedure generally wouldn't be considered to be
"immature".

[Anlatt the Builder]

Post by Dysperdis

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

   An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

  ...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what.  It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope.  You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved.  What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked.   In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.

Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
rights for anybody. End of story.

As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.

As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
school bullies. Which is what you sound like.

[Wayne]

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended, and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct. The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with). Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response. He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.

Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
 The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).  

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.

So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
 He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wayne]

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.

Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.

So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly.  See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story.  But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect.  Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated.  This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing!  LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done.  But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever.  As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy.  He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy.  Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  HR personnel read minds, do they?  Thoughts are
<thoughts.  Speech is a behavior.  He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy.  The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come.  This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!!  LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget.  The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the other
way around.  He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for his
BEHAVIOR.

[Wayne]

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing. He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's. She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management. Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.

Incorrect.

Post by Wayne
 He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.

She didn't voice an opinion. She stated facts. She also didn't
insult Vadala.

Post by Wayne
 She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.

She followed company policy.

Post by Wayne
 Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

Incorrect. Indeed, it seems he can't find a lawyer to help him out.
Why? Because he has no case.

QED

[Wayne]

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it,
cowboying
up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs. He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.

Incorrect.

Post by Wayne
He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.

She didn't voice an opinion. She stated facts. She also didn't
insult Vadala.

Post by Wayne
She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.

She followed company policy.

Post by Wayne
Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

Incorrect. Indeed, it seems he can't find a lawyer to help him out.
Why? Because he has no case.

QED

[juanjo]

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.  He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.  She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.  Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.
The information coming out on this event, including the material Mr.
Vadala has posted on Youtube shows some very specific information.

1. The woman in question mentioned her fiance which is not an unusual
event in any workplace. Discussions of upcoming nuptials as
well as recently completed nuptials are frequent topics of discussion
in any workplace. She mentioned her fiance 4 times in the course of
the day, not necessarily to Mr. Vadala each time but within his
hearing.

2. Mr Vadala was an assistant manager at the store in question and
had been briefed on issues involving inappropriate behaviour in the
workplace including viewing some videos on the issue
so he knew in advance his behaviour was inappropriate.

3. Mr. Vadala called the woman a deviant and immoral directly to her
face as well as when he was discussing the matter with someone from
Human Resources. He has admitted this fact in his interviews.

4. Mr. Vadala admits he has no issue with heterosexuals discussing
their nuptials either past or present.

5. Mr. Vadala behaved inappropriately under the terms of both Federal
and State laws and company policy. It goes without saying that people
working in any workplace are going to have differences of opinion
regarding political views, religious views and political views. They
may have strongly held opinions on the appropriateness of mixed race
marriages or mixed religion marriages. They may have strong feeling
about certain racial groups or concerning people of a certain ethnic
or national origin. There is no rule concerning having such opinions
but there are rules about expressing them in the workplace. If
someone were to behave as he did in just about any workplace, he would
be dismissed for inappropriate behaviour.

[Jimmy Simpsons]

Post by juanjo

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.  He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.  She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.  Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.

True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion and was excoriated
for it. Thanks for admitting it :)

Post by juanjo
The information coming out on this event, including the material Mr.
Vadala has posted on Youtube shows some very specific information.
1.  The woman in question mentioned her fiance which is not an unusual
event in any workplace.  Discussions of upcoming nuptials as
well as recently completed nuptials are frequent topics of discussion
in any workplace.  She mentioned her fiance 4 times in the course of
the day, not necessarily to Mr. Vadala each time but within his
hearing.
2.  Mr Vadala was an assistant manager at the store in question and
had been briefed on issues involving inappropriate behaviour in the
workplace including viewing some videos on the issue
so he knew in advance his behaviour was inappropriate.
3.  Mr. Vadala called the woman a deviant and immoral directly to her
face as well as when he was discussing the matter with someone from
Human Resources.  He has admitted this fact in his interviews.
4.  Mr. Vadala admits he has no issue with heterosexuals discussing
their nuptials either past or present.
5.  Mr. Vadala behaved inappropriately under the terms of both Federal
and State laws and company policy.  It goes without saying that people
working in any workplace are going to have differences of opinion
regarding political views, religious views and political views.  They
may have strongly held opinions on the appropriateness of mixed race
marriages or mixed religion marriages.  They may have strong feeling
about certain racial groups or concerning people of a certain ethnic
or national origin.  There is no rule concerning having such opinions
but there are rules about expressing them in the workplace.  If
someone were to behave as he did in just about any workplace, he would
be dismissed for inappropriate behaviour.

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Jimmy Simpsons

Post by juanjo

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a
whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying
up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended
party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.  He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.  She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.  Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.

True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion

While his opinion may have been "politically incorrect", the problem
here is that he purposely insulted a coworker.

[Jimmy Simpsons]

Post by Enos Penvy

Post by Jimmy Simpsons

Post by juanjo

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a
whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying
up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended
party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.  He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.  She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.  Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.

True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion

While his opinion may have been "politically incorrect", the problem
here is that he purposely insulted a coworker.

After being repeatedly goaded by the ugly bitch.

[Enos Penvy]

Post by Jimmy Simpsons

Post by Enos Penvy

Post by Jimmy Simpsons

Post by juanjo

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a
whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying
up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended
party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.  He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.  She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.  Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.

True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion

While his opinion may have been "politically incorrect", the problem
here is that he purposely insulted a coworker.

After being repeatedly goaded by the ugly bitch.

He wasn't goaded by anything other than his own mind. He pictured
homosexual behavior in his head, and it caused the neurons to
misfire.

[juanjo]

Post by Jimmy Simpsons

Post by Enos Penvy

Post by Jimmy Simpsons

Post by juanjo

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire
some
one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a
whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying
up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended
party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended,

Not exactly. See, one claims to have TAKEN offense (Vadala), while
the other one was personally offended, on purpose, by being called
"deviant", "immoral", or whatever.
Would LOVE for the manager to come forward and give her side of the
story. But in the meanwhile, the letter from HR terminating his
employment fills in enough gaps to give us a good idea of what
happened, and how the company's policies work.

Post by Wayne
and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.

Incorrect. Brookstone conducted an investigation, in which Peter
Vadala participated. This retarded fuckwit even used the word
"deviant" when talking to HR, and even put it in writing! LOL!!

Post by Wayne
The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).

One that he should have kept to himself, as any intelligent adult
would have done. But it appears that he actually not only expressed
his opinion about same-sex marriage, but purposely insulted his
coworker by calling her deviant, immoral, bad, or whatever. As the
letter of termination states, the female manager in question stated
only facts (that her fiancee was female), while Vadala used opinion --
even if RELIGIOUS opinion (which he has no right to impose on others)
-- and aimed them personally at the manager.
So, there's a difference between taking offense at something that
wasn't directed at you personally ("My affianced is female"), and
being purposely offended as is the case here with the manager (being
called immoral, deviant, bad, or whatever).

Post by Wayne
Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.

He decided to ignore a company policy. He was well aware of the
policy (he has stated so), and he knew that the company had a zero-
tolerance approach to the breaching of this specific policy. Indeed,
since the policy is in writing, HR would have had a hard time NOT
firing him for his insulting behavior.

Post by Wayne
He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.

***
<LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HR personnel read minds, do they? Thoughts are
<thoughts. Speech is a behavior. He was fired for inappropriate,
<unprofessional, judgmental, insulting, derogatory comments made to a
<coworker, which comments he knew violated company policy. The kid is
<an idiot who STILL hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut, and for that
<he will be paying the price for YEARS to come. This mimbo POSTED HIS
<LETTER OF TERMINATION on the internet!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
But you forget. The guy that was fired was the injured party, not the
other
way around. He was fired for his religious beliefs...a clear violation of
"hate crime" legislation.

***********
<No, he was not fired for his religious beliefs.  He was fired for his
<BEHAVIOR.
-
Same thing.  He was certainly just as entitled to his opinion as the woman
is to her's.  She couldn't handle it, and squawked to management.  Since he
was fired, he has a good case of being a victim of "hate crime".

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.

True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion

While his opinion may have been "politically incorrect", the problem
here is that he purposely insulted a coworker.

After being repeatedly goaded by the ugly bitch.

Right....................., a woman mentioning she had a fiance. Now
how often does that happen in a work place? This bozo went and had a
talk with "gawd" and then went back and opened his mouth and said a
bunch of stupid nonsense. He got fired for it becauise it violated
state and federal laws and company policy to talk stink in that
fashion to a co-worker.

[BE-VA]

Post by Enos Penvy

Post by Jimmy Simpsons
True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion

While his opinion may have been "politically incorrect", the problem
here is that he purposely insulted a coworker.

No, he stated his opinion, that the lesbian was offended by it was her
problem not his. Further more she was a 'ringer' who had been brought
in to entrap him. When that comes out in court during the progress of
the law suit he will be exonerated and will end up owning a good piece
of Brookstone.

[Great White North]

Post by Enos Penvy

Post by Jimmy Simpsons
True. This guy made a politically incorrect opinion

In whose opinion that matters? Queers are not politically correct people,
they're mental and sexual deviants.

Post by Enos Penvy
While his opinion may have been "politically incorrect", the problem
here is that he purposely insulted a coworker.

The dyke purposely baited him, knowing he had superior and morally
correct reservations about the degenerate behavior of gays. Gays are
reprehensible and should never be allowed near children without strict
law enforcement supervision.

[Anlatt the Builder]

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended, and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct.  The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with).  Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response.  He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.-

He was fired for rude, disrespectful, unprofessional behavior. What
did the other people involved in this (including the engaged woman) do
that was rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional?

[Wayne]

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended, and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct. The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with). Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response. He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.-

***********
<<He was fired for rude, disrespectful, unprofessional behavior. What
<<did the other people involved in this (including the engaged woman) do
<<that was rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional?
-
She goaded him into the statement. Deliberate entrapment.

[Anlatt the Builder]

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended, and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct. The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with). Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response. He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.-

***********
<<He was fired for rude, disrespectful, unprofessional behavior. What
<<did the other people involved in this (including the engaged woman) do
<<that was rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional?
-
She goaded him into the statement.  Deliberate entrapment.-

"Goaded," by talking about her fiance in EXACTLY the same way that
heterosexuals might (and do) talk about their fiances.

What is it about equality that you don't get?

[juanjo]

Post by Wayne

Post by Wayne

Post by Dysperdis

in

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:52:51 +0100,

Post by Degenerate Democrats
An employee at a Brookstone store in Boston Logan Airport is
without a job because...

...as a BIGOT, he spewed HATE.

So what. It isn't a crime to hate.

No, but insulting a superior is usually considered reason to fire some one.

Nope. You'd be surprised what people get away with if there isn't a whiney
assed minority involved. What ever happened to ignoring it, cowboying up,
or just telling the "perp" to get fucked. In this case, the offended party
did the equivalent of telling the teacher, instead of dealing with it.
Kinda immature.-

<<<<
<The rule in most workplaces is that co-workers are supposed to treat
<each other with respect and professionalism. It makes for a better and
<more productive workplace. Anyway, that's the rule most employers set.
<
<Example: the straight people don't make fun of the gay people's
<marriages, and the gay people don't make fun of the straight people's
<marriages. Anybody who breaks either rule is in trouble. No special
<rights for anybody. End of story.
<
<As far as I can tell, the woman involved in this story merely
<mentioned her fiance, the way anybody - gay or straight - might
<mention their finace, or their spouse, or their upcoming wedding.
<Nobody demanded that the guy stand up and announce "I love homosexual
<weddings." No one asked him for his opinion.
<
<As for your "cowboy up, don't tell the teacher" garbage - nobody in
<the workplace needs to live according to rules invented by elementary-
<school bullies. Which is what you sound like.
-
The problem with your logic is that both parties were offended, and the one
who bitched was presumed to be correct. The guy who was fired had a valid
opinion (that you may or may not agree with). Firing the guy was a pretty
lame response. He was fired for what he thought, not really for what he
did.-

***********
<<He was fired for rude, disrespectful, unprofessional behavior. What
<<did the other people involved in this (including the engaged woman) do
<<that was rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional?
-
She goaded him into the statement.  Deliberate entrapment.

Right.......................
She said she had a fiance. Now how often does that happen in a work
place? This idiot went out and had a "talk with gawd" and then came
back and said some stupid nonsense that got him fired.

[BE-VA]

Post by Wayne
***********
<<He was fired for rude, disrespectful, unprofessional behavior. What
<<did the other people involved in this (including the engaged woman) do
<<that was rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional?
-
She goaded him into the statement. Deliberate entrapment.

Absolutely. It was a set up from the Git-Go.

[BE-VA]

Post by Anlatt the Builder
He was fired for rude, disrespectful, unprofessional behavior. What
did the other people involved in this (including the engaged woman) do
that was rude, disrespectful, or unprofessional?

THE LESBIAN BROADCAST THE FACT THAT SHE ATE PUSSY AND CONFIRMED IT IN
THE WORKPLACE BY ANNOUNCING HER PENDING MARRIAGE TO A WOMAN. IF IN THE
WORKPLACE THE FIRED MAN HAD PROCLAIMED IN ANY MANNER OR FORM THAT HE
ATE PUSSY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED FOR DOING IT. The Company obviously
has a double standard when it comes to how it treats it male and female
employees and it homosexual and heterosexual employees. Brookstone
should be heavily fined the Federal Wage and Hour Commission for their
dishonesty and prejudice against heterosexual men. The man who was
fored should be rehired with a large monetary settlement and the
lesbian should be fired for misconduct in the workplace.

[juanjo]

On Nov 9, 7:52 pm, "Degenerate Democrats" <***@anon.org> wrote:

another dipshit reposting after he has been thoroughly owned in
another post on the same subject

[Sane Human]

Post by juanjo
another dipshit reposting after he has been thoroughly owned in
another post on the same subject

You're the fool who chose the life you live. Deal with it.

[BE-VA]

Post by juanjo
another dipshit reposting after he has been thoroughly owned in
another post on the same subject

Shades of CRAZY CRAIG CHILTON! Have you no shame, boy, criticizing
someone as you have when CRAZY CRAIG CHILTON, Mr. Repetition himself,
exist? Of course he too like you is a homosexual.

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:24:08 -0500,
Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA")

Shades of CRAIG CHILTON!

You're really OBSESSED with me, aren't you Taylor?

Sorry, but you're not remotely my type.

NOR is any *other* male. But ESPECIALLY not a
moronic and bigoted LOSER like you.

You are Usenet's LAUGHINGSTOCK:

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Non scrivetemi]

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:24:08 -0500,
Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA")

Shades of CRAIG CHILTON!

You're really OBSESSED with me, aren't you Taylor?

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

":> You're right Craig, as a matter of fact I'll join you.
fuck the next
:> of kin and the sorrow they'll have to deal with because we
fucked
:> Uncle Fridley. I'm not afraid of the law either because
defiling a
:> corpse is a stupid law.

Somehow, I suspect that MOST necrophiliacs are NEVER
found out. So ---

Hey!! CLUELESS WONDER!! I was asked if I had any
objections to people engaging in necrophilia and I pointed
out that I am SENSIBLE and INTELLIGENT enough **NOT**
to be a busybody. Since if a person were to do that, it
would be HARMLESS, that would make it NONE of **MY**
business.

It never ceases to amaze me how ANY person can be
STUPID enough to BE a busybody/control-freak."

A fag and a dead body abuser. Why am I not surprised?

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Sorry, but you're not remotely my type.
NOR is any *other* male. But ESPECIALLY not a
moronic and bigoted LOSER like you.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
the details).
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
tracing it difficult).
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[JumpsOnFire]

On 2009-11-16 09:18:02 -0500, "(¯`·.¸Crazy Craig¸.·´¯) <www.Lay_me.com>

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of CRAZY CRAIG CHILTON
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"CRAZY CRAIG CHILTON" is a bigot who posts regularly
In a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and the characteristic bigoted patois that
he employs so often.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

How candid of you, Crazy.

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[BE-VA]

On 2009-11-13 02:39:58 -0500, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:24:08 -0500,
Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA")

Shades of CRAZY CRAIG CHILTON!

Come on, Crazy! You call every one who tells the truth about you "Bill
Taylor." Now we all know that there is a poster who posts over the name
Bill Taylor (who, by the way has a totally different Usenet service
than I, that should be a CLUE for you Crazy!), The true Bill Taylor,
who for some unknown reason you fail to acknowledge, rides your ass
relentlessly and for good reason no doubt...tell us the truth, Crazy,
were you "jilted" by Bill Taylor? You even throw in a Leroyblue and a
Bibon who you also claim are "Bill Taylor" and to make the matter even
more CRAZY, Crazy Craig Chilton, you claim that you got all your
information about these personages two of whom no one else has ever
heard of from some one who calls him/herself "No One". Now that's some
CRAY STUFF, Crazy Craig Chilton <SNIGGER>

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Bill Taylor]

The PROVEN Stupidity of Craig Chilton (As compiled by google)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=stupid+queer+craig
+chilton&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

\/
======
\/
\/
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | |
/ O O\ | "Faggot" |
/ \ | |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\__/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |__ _ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")

"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.

This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).

See Message-ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.

The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)

Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "***@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).

However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:***@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:***@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).

He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:***@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:***@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.

Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Father Jeffress]

Post by juanjo
another dipshit reposting after he has been thoroughly owned in
another post on the same subject

You can't even claim outright ownership of your rectum, spanky.

[juanjo]

Post by juanjo
another dipshit reposting after he has been thoroughly owned in
another post on the same subject

You can't even claim outright ownership of your rectum, spanky.  

Ohhh looky here, another cowardly, anonymous poster talking stink.

You can show us that your ability to deny reality is unchanged but
that will not change the facts in this matter.
The information coming out on this event, including the material Mr.
Vadala has posted on Youtube shows some very specific information.

1. The woman in question mentioned her fiance which is not an unusual
event in any workplace. Discussions of upcoming nuptials as
well as recently completed nuptials are frequent topics of discussion
in any workplace. She mentioned her fiance 4 times in the course of
the day, not necessarily to Mr. Vadala each time but within his
hearing.

2. Mr Vadala was an assistant manager at the store in question and
had been briefed on issues involving inappropriate behaviour in the
workplace including viewing some videos on the issue
so he knew in advance his behaviour was inappropriate.

3. Mr. Vadala called the woman a deviant and immoral directly to her
face as well as when he was discussing the matter with someone from
Human Resources. He has admitted this fact in his interviews.

4. Mr. Vadala admits he has no issue with heterosexuals discussing
their nuptials either past or present.

5. Mr. Vadala behaved inappropriately under the terms of both Federal
and State laws and company policy. It goes without saying that people
working in any workplace are going to have differences of opinion
regarding political views, religious views and political views. They
may have strongly held opinions on the appropriateness of mixed race
marriages or mixed religion marriages. They may have strong feeling
about certain racial groups or concerning people of a certain ethnic
or national origin. There is no rule concerning having such opinions
but there are rules about expressing them in the workplace. If
someone were to behave as he did in just about any workplace, he would
be dismissed for inappropriate behaviour.

[Anlatt the Builder]

You know, I had the same problem. A white female co-worker of mine -
who I quite like - was going to marry a black man. When she mentioned
it with such joy and happiness, I had to point out that what she was
doing was immoral. According to my religion, God put the races on
different continents because He didn't want them to mix. Intermarriage
is against God's law.

She cried, and then she complained to HR. Just because I expressed my
God-given religious opinion!

Also, my manager was talking about his son's upcoming "bar mitzvah."
He seemed very excited about it. I asked him if he really thought it
was a good idea. After all, people - like Jews, but certainly not
restricted to Jews (I am not anti-Semitic!) - who don't accept Jesus
as their savior will spend an eternity of torture in Hell. Being
concerned about his son as I was (and, to be honest, concerned about
him too), I simply asked if it wouldn't be better to send his son to a
Christian summer camp rather than rather than wasting all that money
on a ceremony that won't bring anybody closer to Jesus.

Oddly, even though I meant it for their own good, my boss was rather
perturbed.

I just can't understand why I can't express, in the workplace, my
certain religious belief that anyone who does not live their lives
according to the dictates of MY religion is making a big mistake and
insulting God. Surely such views can only improve the overall work
situation.

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:49 -0800 (PST),

Intermarriage is against God's law.

What a CROCK of IGNORANT crappola!!

<flush remaining idiocy>

[Wayne]

Post by (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:49 -0800 (PST),

Intermarriage is against God's law.

What a CROCK of IGNORANT crappola!!
<flush remaining idiocy>

Heh heh......WHOOOOOOOOSH....right over your head....

[(¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:03:49 -0800 (PST),

Intermarriage is against God's law.

What a CROCK of IGNORANT crappola!!

<flush remaining idiocy>