An employee at a Brookstone store was fired after telling a co-worker it’s wrong to be a Jew. A manager from another branch kept talking about her upcoming Jewish holiday. Finally, the Christian employee wanted her to stop pushing her anti-Christian agenda and told her, “Regarding Judaism, I believe that’s bad stuff.”
And Brookstone fired him! They claim to have a zero-tolerance policy on discriminatory harassment. All right-thinking people are outraged over this persecution of Christians.
Well, maybe I don’t have that quite right.
Peter Vadala, at Brookstone’s Logan Airport store, was fired after telling a co-worker it’s wrong to be gay. A manager from another branch kept mentioning her female fiance. Finally Vadala, based on his Christian beliefs, wanted her to stop talking about her “so-called fiance,” and told her, “Regarding homosexuality, I believe that’s bad stuff.”
Brookstone investigated, took Vadala’s statement, and then fired him, citing their zero-tolerance policy on discriminatory harassment. And of course, the Christian Right is frothing over this persecution of Christians.
Watch:
Vadala wasn’t fired for his Christian beliefs. He was fired because he directly insulted a colleague, and because Brookstone hires its staff with the understanding that they won’t go around condemning each other’s religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race.
And, for the record, Brookstone would be right to fire someone who said to Vadala on the job, “Your Christianity? I believe that’s bad stuff.” Because Brookstone’s employees have promised to not to do that sort of thing as a condition of their employment.
But the irony! Vadala is fine with talk of opposite-sex fiances, but at 2:15 into the clip, he says:
I was going to explain that I prefer she didn’t bring [homosexuality] up in the workplace, because I don’t believe that controversial issues like that have any place in the workplace at all.
Vadala wants one rule for what straights can say about their families, and a different, more restrictive rule for gays. Do you see the irony? He’s complaining about being punished for expressing his beliefs at work, AND he’s saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to talk about their families at work.
Peter Vadala. You’ll be hearing that name a lot. He’s not asking for freedom of speech. He’s asking for special rights.
Oh, poor, persecuted Christian. It’s the LAW, dumbass. Get over your “so-called” discomfort.
[...] http://wakingupnow.com/blog/peter-vadala [...]
…so this ultra-right-wing-Orthodox Jew walks up to a Christian guy at the meat counter of a local grocery store. The radical Jew repeatedly gets in the kid’s face and tells him how wring it is for the world to eat pork. The kid does his best to ignore then head case, but that Jew just won’t give up. The kid turns to the psycho Jew and tells him that his Jew religion has it all wrong. And gets canned for it.
The kid at the meat counter was targeted by a radical with an agenda. A radical that sure knows how easy it is to manipulate a system that is afraid to “offend” anyone that will make bad publicity for the grocery store. This kid was the victim. He listened to this nasty bitch as long as he could take before expressing his opinion. He should sue Brookstone’s AND her for any financial suffering he endured for her attack on him. I wonder if the bitch even has a net worth.
This isn’t some parable. This guy is just trying to make a living in a shark pool. Some radical gay shark took a bite of out his a$$.
[Webmaster note: Right. A straight person getting legally married is no big deal, but a gay person getting married is a "radical." Some action, but two different standards. The other place your analogy fails is that the manager wasn't getting in Vadala's face and telling him how wrong he was -- that would be harassment. She was just mentioning her fiance. And that, in your eyes makes her a head case and a nasty bitch. Once again, a different set of rules for gays.]
This guy with his “so called” Christianity should actually read his “so called” bible on the “”so called” teachings of his “so called” Christ. He might just learn a thing or two about love, compassion, and casting judgment. I’ll pray for his “so called” soul.
wow, Brian… way to twist something TOTALLY out of proportion!!! just as the webmaster notes: the manager was not harassing the Vadala… she was just mentioning her situation just as anyone would or should. BUT Peter Vadala CANNOT handle that. He can’t learn to live in the 21st century.
There is something wrong with him AND I think there’s something wrong with you… and what’s with the Jew analogy… I think there’s something else going on here…
I agree with Roger. “…her so-called female ‘fianceé’…”, “so-called ‘homosexual marriage’…” — If a straight person was talking about their wedding plans it would have made no difference to this guy, but talking about the fully-legal right for two people of the same gender to marry in that state becomes “controversial”, it becomes them talking about their “belief”. No, it becomes them talking about their legal right to marry. Peter Vadala needs to learn when to just shut up.
What’s with all of the air quotes and “so-calleds”? Marriage between two people of the same or differing genders is legal in Massachusetts. They are not so-called marriages and they are not “marriages”. The idea that he, as a Christian, can even speak for all Christians and say they’re only “marriages” is ludicrous on its face.
This is a problematic issue because people are continually saying things like, “I don’t care what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes but I wish they wouldn’t flaunt it.” Now, if you look around the typical office setting (if not retail), you will see many desks with pictures of loved ones on them. Additionally, Jan in accounting may not be able to get to your purchase order today because she was home taking care of her daughter. And Kevin in marketing will miss the meeting because he needs to pick his wife up at the airport.
However, if Steve says he needs to pick up his partner at the train station, he’s flaunting his lifestyle. Because, well, his boss isn’t going to let him get time off from work to pick up his *roommate* or *friend*. It’s insidious that any gay person should be required to constantly self-censor in that way.
His last point…you could get fired for rebuffing a pass by a gay co-worker? There’s a big difference in saying “No, I’m not interested. I don’t play for the other team.” and “No, I think that all homosexuals are going to hell.” which is really only a hop, skip and punch away from we’re going to beat up your faggoty ass in the parking lot later. In the first case, I’d be embarrassed; in the second case, I’d be worried.
“That’s bad stuff?” Really? Does he tell his friends to be quiet about their sexcapades around him because he thinks it’s “bad stuff”? Anti-gay right wing Christians wouldn’t be so insufferable if they weren’t such so selective and hypocritical. Eating lobster is bad stuff, too. Look it up.
Wow just wow. Hopefully he will be able to find a nice job a his local Bigotopia!
Wow, she mentioned her fiancee four whole times during the course of a workday? Geez, I can’t imagine any reason for bringing up the most important person in one’s life as often as once every two hours except for furthering a vicious political agenda. This woman was clearly trying to provoke our intrepid hero and intentionally discomfort him!
It’s so sad that Vadala can’t distinguish between someone trying to drag him into The Big Gay Marriage Debate (which, true, could have been bad form in the workplace) and someone chatting excitedly about a pretty major development in their life. What’s most disturbing to me about this video is the change in his interpretation of the conversation: Assuming her spouse-to-be is male, he congratulates her and expects her to be happy about the wedding. Upon discovering that her fiancee is a woman, it’s a heel-face turn and suddenly it’s impossible that she’s bringing up her marriage because she’s happy or excited about it. Obviously, gay relationships are devoid of love, commitment, happiness, or any of the other ingredients we find in straight relationships; a gay relationship is a political point, a controversial subject, or a form of rebellion against the establishment, but never based on genuine affection.
With this video, Peter Vadala is essentially saying to his coworker and to any other gay person watching, “You don’t actually love that person, you’re only acting like you do because you want to make other people feel uncomfortable.” It’s hard to think of a statement more dehumanizing than that.
You people just do not get it do you? Valada has just as much right as the gay person to be free from taunting and bullying due to diverse opinions. This gay person kept prodding, flaunting and sticking the gay agenda in this person’s face. Why should he have to deal with that silently? He should have his say- yet when he does he gets fired. So much for tolerance and diversity!! This is so hypocritcial. But you people are so pro-gay and anti morality that you can not see through your liberal blinders!
[Webmaster note: When a straight woman mentions her fiance, it's perfectly fine. But when a lesbian does it, you call it "taunting and bullying...prodding, flaunting and sticking the gay agenda in this person's face." Do you really not see that as a double standard? Do you really not see you're setting up one rule for straights and another for gays? Your inability to see that is exactly the reason for the word homophobia -- a psychological condition that overwhelms a person's ability to reason.]
Drinking is leagal but I wouldn’t want to hear about someone’s last nights drunken exploitations during work. Legality has nothing to do with it. Although I would have talked with the woman differently, her upcoming “marriage” had nothing to do with the workplace. As a christian it is not our job to chastize others, but on the other hand his beliefs should not be a reason for being fired. Firing him was a knee-jerk reaction to a sensitive subject. From his statement we can say that he didn’t demean her as a person or threaten her as a person. If he were to tell the person who was referring to last nights drinking as “bad stuff” would he have been fired? Certainly not. Both are legal. Both can be subjects of moral disagreement.
The attempt is to force equality at the expense of liberty.
[Webmaster note: First, when you're at work, do you really object every time a colleague mentions a family member? Second, he was not fired for his beliefs; he was fired for violating a code of conduct he had accepted when he first took the job. Finally, he did demean her as a person by condemning homosexuality in general. It's mind-boggling that you can't see that. Just as she would have been demeaning him had she said, "Your Christianity? I think that's bad stuff."]
In response to realityczech: Do you feel you are entitled to love someone you care for, enter into a relationship, and otherwise be treated like every other fellow human being? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? That sort of thing? Are these the sort of things you seek to get from life czech? If the answer is yes, could you now explain how (in clear LOGICAL terms, as opposed to referring to morality,dogma,etc) how for heterosexuals this is not an “agenda”, yet for homosexuals it is?
I knew I should have elaborated for the webmaster but I gave him/her the benefit of the doubt. Your first point does not make any sense. My point was to illustrate a comparison of behaviors not people. Your second is what the company used to validate what they did. If it was the code that they used then the code itself is questionable; but it is still biased on what people believe.
Third and most important is the condemnation was for the behavior and not the person. He did not insult her directly by saying that she was a bad person or such. If anyone puts down Christianity I certainly do not take offense to it. It is their right to have an opinion.
If Brookstone fired this person on the basis that gay marriage is legal in MA and therefore “fact” that means that I can show up at work and talk about the abortion I had last weekend repeatedly and with anyone within earshot. Believe me, I will start screaming harrassment when and if anyone doesn’t think abortion is best for everyone. Hey, abortion is legal in MA so therefore “fact”. Just for the record, I am all for gay marriage (I voted yes), pro-choice and are comfortable with the knowledge that there will be others who do not share my beliefs and values. If you bring up your personal (not professional) life at work, you need to know your audience and be prepared for a personal answer. This employee should not have been terminated.
Wow, this guy really does not understand company policy. At about 3:45 he says Brookstone forbids retaliation when a complaint of harassment has occurred, but what he doesn’t understand is that those policies are in place to keep the person ACCUSED of harassment from retaliating against the person who reported them. The woman reporting him for violating company policy was NOT retaliation. The company firing him for violating company policy was NOT retaliation.
If he was uncomfortable hearing about her upcoming marriage to a person of the same sex he could have easily expressed that he would prefer to not discuss her personal life without blatantly expressing that he did not approve of her sexual orientation. Then if the coworker had continued to bring the subject up with him he could have gone to his superiors about the issue. This, of course, doesn’t mean that he could complain for merely overhearing her discuss with someone else her upcoming homosexual marriage. Just as I, as an atheist, could not expect one of my coworkers to face repercussions for mentioning to another coworker that they had a wonderful service at church the previous Sunday (not that I would ever do that, or even care). However, if they came up to me and started discussing the new pastor at their church and, instead of politely informing them that I did not care to hear about it, I told them I thought churches were a breeding ground for weak-minded bigots I could reasonably expect to lose my job, or get written up at the very least.
Another example would be if a white coworker was talking about their black spouse. If someone disagrees with that and would prefer to not discuss it with that person they can request to not discuss it, but they cannot tell that person they believe what they are doing is wrong or take action to forbid that person from mentioning their spouse at all in the workplace.
As a side note I would just like to explain, before I get any responses claiming that I am a Christian-hating godless witch, that I do not regard churches as a breeding ground for weak-minded bigots. I was simply trying to demonstrate my point.
Richelle,
You are right, he doesn’t understand the retaliation rule but it makes no difference. I am concerned about why you think you should get fired or written up for suggesting that churches are breeding grounds for weak-minded bigots. I am a Christian and am not offended in the least by that statement. It is not an attack on me personally. Why should you be punished for your thoughts? How are your thoughts going to hurt me? Acting on beliefs that would be to the detrament of someone else is a different story but he had no authority nor did he suggest he would act on his beliefs in a negative way towards this woman.
Please tell me why one should be punished for thought.
Well Jason it’s quite simple. Companies are often required by state and/or federal laws to have anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies in place to protect individuals in the workplace. Maybe you would not be offended if I were to make negative remarks regarding church, or Christianity in general, but others might. Someone I work with might feel that my comments are inappropriate and offensive. If I were to say this to a Christian coworker it WOULD be a personal attack on them. If I say churches are a place for weak-minded bigots, and I know that this person goes to church, I am knowingly insinuating that this person is a weak-minded bigot. That would be extremely inappropriate in the workplace and that is why these policies are in place. By accepting the conditions of those policies, an employee is subject to corrective action as laid out in the agreement. There is a time and place for those thoughts to be expressed and that does not include one’s place of employment.
Do you really think people should be allowed to express any beliefs they may have on any issue while in the workplace? Should someone be allowed to tell a black coworker that they feel whites are a superior race? Should a man be allowed to tell a female coworker he feels it is irresponsible for women to be promoted to management positions? If you and I worked together should you, knowing that I am an atheist, be able to tell me that you couldn’t wait for the day when godless heathens burned in hell? (I’m not implying that you would ever say this to me, or anyone, for that matter. Just another illustration.)
If your answer is “yes” to any of these I think you are being willfully ignorant.
Here’s a link with information on anti-harassment/anti-discrimination policies in the workplace:
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-discrimination/starting-business-employment-anti-discrimination-policy.html
This man is not a bigot and was not judging the woman. Please get your facts straight before posting comments. This woman knew she was offending her Christian coworker by talking about her homosexual relations. This is sexual harrassment and intolerance on her part. This man went and prayed before gently, out of Christian love for all and in a non-judmental way, trying to inform the woman of what she might not know – that homosexuality is a sin against God and no man-made laws can or will ever change that. He did this out of a desire for this woman to have happiness and the abundant life God wants for all people, but that this woman will never have as long as she continues in this sin. We are all sinners, but should be striving to not sin – not embracing the sin. Regardless of any who reads this believes or does not believe, this woman will continue to be punished by God because of the sin of homosexuality until she begins striving to end this sin in her life. And, she will only be alble to achieve this with God’s help. This Christian man was doing his Godly duty to attempt to help this woman even he had to put his job at risk. Satan in the world will always fight back against Christians who stand up for God and he will use those who are weak in God like the supervisor who fired this Christian man. This man is a hero!
The Mormon bible explains that Africans were made black as a punishment from god. So if I tell my coworker that being black is wrong, that’s perfectly fine? Are Mormons persecuted if theyre fired for making comments like that?
Its not anyone’s job to tell someone how to find happiness or get right with God. Even if she was truly hurting herself–say taking drugs or drinking–he shouldnt just walk up to her and tell her. There are appropriate channels.
“Please get your facts straight before posting comments.”
Wade,
Please take your own advice.
So when pedophilia and beastiality are all the rage, you will have to accept that too. Sexual perversion = BAD STUFF.
In a legal sense, the analogy with Judaism is perhaps appropriate, but in a moral sense it doesn’t do justice to the actual events because being Jewish isn’t as genetically inescapable as being homosexual. I think if the analogy were instead made with race (e.g. African American), that would really hit the nail on the head.
Here’s the thing. It is wrong of him to impose his beliefs on others that he works with. But isn’t it also wrong of her to be broadcasting her love life at work? What exactly did she say? Was she bringing up inappropriate topics, such as detailed accounts of her dates? Was she, in short, talking about sex with her girls all the time? Because that also constitutes harassment.
[Webmaster note: And we're back to the double standard. Whatever way she brought up her fiance, he fine with it when he thought it was a man -- he even asked for more information. The only thing that changed was that he found out the fiance was a woman. And he makes it clear that he doesn't think ANY mention of same-sex fiances should happen in the workplace, even though opposite-sex fiances are just dandy. And second, Vadala is trying to make a case for oppression and harassment here; if she'd been "talking about sex with her girls all the time," surely he'd have mentioned it.]
jimmy – compare a loving consentual relationship to the things you have is insulting. pedophelia is distructive and most child molesters are straight men, not homosexual men and women. abusing childen should never be discussed so lightly, as something that is “all the rage.” it is painful and devastating and to treat it otherwise is offensive, particularly to those who were abused as children.
jason – really – do you want someone to compare your love life to a night of drinking? if someone compared my relationship with my husband to that i would be offended. she was not giving a step by step of her sexual exploits the night before, she was mentioning her fiancee. when i got engaged i talked about it ALL the time. people at work brought it up and asked me about the big day, the honeymoon, the plans, etc. it’s normal to get to know your coworkers. it saddens me to think that if my sister, in MA, got engaged to her girlfriend people would not respond in such a celebratory way. committed relationships take a central part in people’s lives – it is acceptable and commonplace to discuss with people how they’re spouses, boy/girlfriends, children are. what would peter have done if this woman was talking about her divorce from her husband – rant at her about her failure to uphold her marriage, or listen supportively? hopefully the latter.
to both jimmy and jason – don’t trivialize a committed relationship just because you don’t agree with it. you have the right to disagree, but not to demean – that is dehumanizing and it is a slippery slope to treating people as subhuman.
First, I love how Jason disappears as soon as Richelle gives such an excellent response to his question.
Second, people like Wade make me sick. We don’t want or need your help to make sure we don’t sin against god, so please don’t bother.
Third, it never ceases to amaze me how people can hear of a situation and completely distort it to suit their own agendas! If Vadala said “I don’t think you should talk about your personal life at work” or “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t tell me about your personal life” or anything along those lines BEFORE he even found out she was marrying a woman, then that would be perfectly acceptable. This guy WANTED to know about her fiance UNTIL he found out it was a woman. So how could she POSSIBLY know to stop mentioning it around him until he said it was “bad stuff” that she was marrying a woman. And to call her a “bitch” for talking about her wedding?! That is INCREDIBLE! The leaps in logic the religious right have to make! It’s unreal!
I know I shouldn’t constantly be so surprised by reactions like this, but I just can’t help it. I’m so grateful to not know too many people like this in my everyday life (as far as I’m aware) and only have to be subjected to it via the internet… But I feel horrible for the many, many people who are not so fortunate.
Richelle,
You compare oranges to apples. Your examples of discrimination include aspects of people that are physical characteristics of them. I do agree that one should not put people down for their physical characteristics…we do not differ there. Behaviors are different from physical characteristics. I really do not care about what the laws state because every law is not based in truth. Again I would have handled it differently but I still do not believe that he should have been fired for stating his opinion about her behavior.
Jenifer, She never answered my question…but why don’t you give it a try…
Why should someone be punished for thought?
Vadala was not punished for thinking he was punished for expressing his bigoted beliefs in an inappropriate forum.
This kid was a com-arts major at franciscan university of steubenville (franciscan.edu). The com-arts students do all sorts of mock interviews, newscasts, multimedia production, etc. It’s quite obvious to me that he’s simply an attention-starved dude fulfilling his lifelong dream of being on TV, using his “campaign” against homosexuals as a means to his absurd end…
i landed here because i saw the fox news interview this guy did and googled his name. i see his christian cohorts have done the same and defend him in various places his story is mentioned. i have never been to this site before but due to the stuff in the sidebar i’m gonna guess it is a gay leaning site. these people have NO shame. he called his boss a devient. if i had called my boss the b word (i worked in an office with women i was the only male) i would have been fired on the spot no questions asked. and i worked for the country government. this due is using the same ploy they always use, claim a person saying they are gay is shoving their sex life in your face.
Wade, shouldn’t you be busy preparing for the rapture or something?
Jason, you’re simply an idiot.
And Ricky, thanks for showing that not all straight men have to be homophobic. Wade and Jason, take notes.
Just because you disagree with something doesn’t mean you are “phobic” about it. It is already illegal to express your opinions in Canada and Britain, do we really want that here? In the words of feminist professor and noted lesbian, Camille Paglia, “Words must remain free.” She said this while defending the appointment of conservative leaning Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. As Christians, when dealing with our fallen, sinful world, Jesus said; “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Matthew 6:10. The days of men calling good evil and evil good was predicted in the old testament should come as no surprise. We will have to keep our opinions to ourselves except (for the time-being) in church. We were well warned this would happen, we just didn’t think it would be this soon. Next, churches that won’t marry homosexuals will lose tax exempt status and, eventually, their buildings. For some reason, our country has chosen to embrace the idea of someone’s lifestyle choice granting them protected minority status. If I were a minority, I would be a little insulted. Well, maybe a lot insulted.
[Note from Rob: Really? How do you feel about your protected status as a majority? Christians are protected by law from discrimination and they're covered by hate crime laws. Are you insulted by your current protected status, or do you just take that for granted?]
It seems people often forget the detail that this was a visiting coworker not a regular one. He may have never seen her again. Couldn’t he have let it go after just a day? Also, he was very new to the company. He had only been there a few weeks. If you owned a retail shop and a new employee violated your policies would you keep him around? what if he had said something like that to a customer? There was no history for them to look to that would suggest that this might not become an ongoing problem. Finally, he mentions in his account a training video featuring the harassment of homosexuals. He clearly was aware of what the company considered to be harassment and that the company would not tolerate actions or words against homosexuals. If he felt that strongly about his position on homosexuality he should have left his company after watching the video.
Wow, the bigots really hate the idea of gay people being equal don’t they? They just can’t stand that a gay person would have the cheek not to accept their status as subhuman and talk about their loved one in the same way as a straight person would…it’s like they think they’re a full person or something! Tsk tsk, can’t have that. Obviously it’s fine for a straight (full) person to talk about their loved ones, but the subhuman queers had better just sit there being ashamed and never mentioning theirs, because that would be being “in your face” about their “perversion”.
What is heartening is that the bigots are so obviously struggling to come up with halfway-decent arguments to justify their hate. They clearly don’t like it one bit that the world is evolving, treating gay people as second-class citizens is no longer accepted in society or the workplace, and more and more of the population are against their narrow-minded unpleasantness. As they find themselves more and more ostracised, they resort to increasingly desperate tactics and absurd arguments…I think they know really that they’ve lost, and their dinosaur movement is in its death throes (not that dinosaurs ever existed of course). Those who have been pressing for a kinder, gentler society just need to keep going in the same direction, and things will continue to improve.
The bigots can think what they like but in the workplace at least, where gay people can’t get away from them, they will just have to swallow their hate and outwardly accept the idea of equality, however much they can’t hack the fact that society has embraced it. Why is making gay people miserable seemingly the most important part of Christianity for these people anyway? There are so many positive, nice things that they could campaign for instead.
Kat — That is a typical response from someone who does not have a response in debate…try to dismiss the person who disagrees with them by slandering and insulting them. In fact, most of the responses use insulting name calling “bigot”, “homophobic”, “idiot” etc.
The most important item that everyone seems to be unwilling or unable to comprehend is that this is an issue of thought control. It is very dangerous for a society to attempt to control thoughts/beliefs. You may not like what a person believes but once we start punishing people for having beliefs that we disagree with we lose our liberty/freedom. The Nazis were a perfect example of a society trying to control thought. Anyone who expressed anything except hate towards Jews were “taken away”. Iran today tries to control thought in their country by Sharia law which allows a person who leaves Islam to be put to death. As well intentioned as some “thought” laws are trying to be…in principle they are dangerous because the do not allow for true freedom.
The whole crux of my argument is that we discern the difference between a belief and behavior. Lets use a different example. If I am engaging in a behavior like eating meat that someone that I work with believes is immoral and she expresses their beliefs by saying “what you are doing is bad and immoral. We should never eat meat”; is that worthy of having them be fired? This is analogous because one person is ascribing their belief system to a behavior. Please open your mind to think about this example. Look at the basic principle at work. If you respond emotionally by saying “eating meat is not the same as a person’s love life” then you are not engaging in looking at the core point.
There are many belief systems in the world. In America we have (perhaps had) the ability to express our beliefs freely. Why is it different if it is a belief in Christianity?
Ultimately the decision of who is employed by a private company is up to the company. The danger is that policies that exhibit “thought control” are being accepted in our society. It is a slippery slope to go down the path of thought control.
Just for the record…I would love and encourage any homosexual to come to my church. I have before. Everyone needs to hear the gospel.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Jesus Christ