Comments on: Is this wrongful termination?

By: Mykelb

Mykelb — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:19:21 +0000

Private employers can fire us for being gay, why not christians? Maybe he now understands what bigotry means.

By: David Mudkips

David Mudkips — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:29:37 +0000

Not anti-Christian bias.

I work in the infosec field, and am often tasked to research whether someone has abused company time / resources to do something not in the company’s interest.

This, CLEARLY, was a stupid move on Grard’s part. You don’t use company time or resources to engage in your own political/moral evangelizing.

The proper response if (as a journalist who received a press release in his official capacity) would be to go to his editor and see if perhaps he could publish an editorial rebuttal.

Responding personally and testily to a communication he received on the job was just plain dumb.

Doesn’t sound like he learned anything from this little life lesson though.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:26:04 +0000

I don’t think it’s anti-Christian bias. Not all Christians would agree with his views on this issue so it’s not about his religion. But I don’t think he should be fired. Maybe if he had responded using the company email or in an official capacity, but he shouldn’t be punished for personally disagreeing with the official political positions of his company. Think carefully if you want to be fired because you disagree with your employer’s view on health care reform or any other issue.

By: Dr. Matthew

Dr. Matthew — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:07:08 +0000

This seems a very weak defense – as some of the first responses pointed out, the matter of which computer and which account he replied from aren’t really that relevant. He used a communication received at work, in a legitimate capacity, to send a hostile message. If the front desk clerk at your local Motel 6 seriously insulted a patron who had simply asked for a room, no one would care about resource use – same here. In the course of his work he behaved unprofessionally, blaming his religion after the fact is unlikely to be successful.

By: Mortanius

Mortanius — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:57:49 +0000

I agree with John, nothing in Grard’s statement indicated any religion much less Christianity. By all appearances he, as a professional, responded to a news release in an unprofessional manner.

Grard claiming (ex post facto) that he is being fired because of his religious beliefs is weak, unless he is willing to testify that the sole purpose of the Yes on 1 campaign is a purely Christian Religion purpose of denying equal rights to a group of people they hate and not about “protecting marriage”.

By: Gus

Gus — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:41:25 +0000

I’ve had co-workers fired for using company computers to check their personal email accounts, let alone writing an email.

By: lurker

lurker — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:33:53 +0000

If a queer person had written such a letter to – say – a conservative political or christian group, then that queer person should get fired too! It doesn’t have to do with the identity of the writer, it has to do with professionalism.

This is about using work priviliges – and actually representing an employer – to inappropriately express personal views, and an inflamitory way, also.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:55:24 +0000

I’d say that one should be able to fire a Christian if they aren’t in agreement with your religious tenets.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:15:15 +0000

Because he was working as a reporter covering the marriage vote in Maine I do think that it is relevant to why he was terminated. It is one of those situations where he should have thought twice before he hit send. Journalists who cover issues are held to a standard and he violated that the minute he sent the email, whether from his personal email or his company email.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:58:16 +0000

My partner and his sister work for a local radio station, so I hear conversations constantly about journalistic ethics. Journalists are held to a higher standard when it comes to editorializing. His action as a reporter to make such a response to a press release, even if it had been from home on his own PC with his private email address, could be considered to cross that line if he was privy to the information through his job. Apparently his employer thought so and canned him.