Towleroad Guide to the Tube #566

FIRED: Hate group MassResistance champions case of Massachusetts man who says he was fired for his belief in traditional marriage.

FILIPINO PRISONERS: They're back with a Queen medley.

WHEN – SOME SAY: New York Governor David Paterson launches reelection campaign.

For recent Guides to the Tube, click HERE.

Comments

  1. says

    The Wingnut Daily was all over the poor fired MA guy. He gives himself away when he refers to his co-worker’s “so called” fiancee. It’s not so-called in MA, buddy, it’s fiancee. In the workplace, if you don’t like who your co-worker is marrying, you say Congrats anyway and keep it to yourself. But, like the typical homophobe, he thinks he should be free to air his hostility without consequences, and when faced with the consequences, he plays victim. BooHoo.

  2. Mike says

    Um, yeah, Dickhead, if it is legal, then there’s no basis for you to call someone’s fiance a “so-called” fiance, and, yes, you can be fired for “simply expressing your opinion” if that opinion belittles another employee. Get over yourself.

    Why the fuck do Christianists think they have a right to push their beliefs upon everyone else? Shut up, get to work and just do your goddammed job.

  3. Sargon Bighorn says

    Idiots! He was not fired for his belief system. No one would know his belief system unless it vomited out of his mouth! Who does he think he is that his opinion matters? Such arrogance!

  4. Bart says

    As a Christian, I find this guy to be a douche. His opinions have nothing to do with Christianity. They are his, maybe formed at his conservative church, who knows. But they are opinions and all he had to say is, “Would you mind keeping your personal life to yourself. This is my place of employment and I don’t really need to know about your life.”

    But no. He gives her his opinion about her personal life. And when did any marriage in Mass. become “so-called” because this twerp says so? Would he have said anything if this were a man talking about his fiance? No. Because that fits into his religious belief of what a marriage is, and for him, being the upstanding Christian that he is (though being a Christian myself, I will add that this guy seems to know nothing about the life of Jesus Christ and what Christ’s mission was here on earth.)

    And I will also say, this guy sounds like he’s lying. The body language, the staccato voice patterns…there’s something he is not saying. But that’s conjecture on my part. Regardless, he was wrong and he lost his job. I just had when these idiots bring the same faith I have into this. Because it is there that I take offense to dumbasses using Jesus as their weapon, when Christ himself said NOTHING about homosexuality and embraced everyone.

  5. DR says

    If he’s telling the truth and this woman followed him around constantly restarting a conversation he clearly didn’t want to have, then why isn’t she being reprimanded? Why should she be permitted to get in his face and he not be allowed to disagree?

    Something doesn’t smell right, I don’t see anything which would justify an immediate termination over this.

  6. Matt says

    Dr, where did she “get in his face,” and how do you know if it was obvious that he was uncomfortable? He merely says that over the course of the day she mentioned her fiance (like on does…) about four times and that the fiance is female. He felt a need to push his Christianist beliefs on other people, belittling the supervisor and her legal marriage; she was merely stating a fact–that she has a female fiance. Lots of people view the simple act of two men holding hands as “harassment;” I don’t buy his end of things at all. I think it was dumb for Brookstone to use any “gay marriage is legal” argument… marriage doesn’t have to be legal for one to consider that they have a fiance.

  7. says

    “If he’s telling the truth . . . ”

    Why would we think this a-hole was telling the truth and not spinning his side of the story? His hostility–denying that gay couples have real marriages, to start–towards gay people is evident even within his spin. It’s implausible that that hostility wasn’t expressed towards a co-worker who deserved nothing but congratulations. If he’d kept his hostility to himself no one would have gotten “in his face.”

    If I expressed my “disagreement” over a co-worker’s race or religion by saying, Gee, I think that blackness is bad stuff, or It’s so immoral for Christians like you to be allowed to marry, I’d fully expect to see a pink slip on my desk. I’m guessing this isn’t the first time he expressed his a-holeism.

  8. says

    Irony alert. (2:15 into the video).

    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.

    He’s not for freedom of speech. He’s for freedom of bigotry.

  9. Chris in Cincy says

    Patterson is one of the only Democratic leaders that can say they honestly care about gays and lesbians. I hope he and the other dems can get marriage passed

  10. professor crabby says

    Check out the comments on the youtube site after the christer’s rant –utterly, depressing –there were 62 when I looked just now and I think maybe 3 that weren’t from hate filled morons–

  11. says

    Re: the YouTube comments. They’ve set it up so that everyone’s comment is subject to approval, so I’m sure they’re being selective about what they post. One I left a couple of days ago never appeared, not surprisingly. He can dish it out but can’t take it.

  12. James says

    Hey folks, do you think the video my friends and I made could ever qualify for a guide to the tube?

    Love it – comment! Hate it? Flame away :)

    We love Calvin Harris’s Ready for the weekend so much we made this video. Yes, gay life in Sydney has come to this.

  13. DR says

    Yes, Tank, because we all know that gay people never overreact and cry “persecution” any time someone disagrees with them.

    Either way, this was a ONE TIME incident, and he needs to sue to get his job back. A formal reprimand would have been more appropriate; this does not rise to the level of termination.

  14. says

    Ah, we can always count on you to defend the homophobic assholes, DR.

    Once again, he wasn’t disagreeing with a co-worker. He was expressing hostility towards her very being, no different than if he had been expressing hostility towards her race or if he had said she was evil for being Christian. Such hostility has no place in a work setting and shows that he has no sense of boundaries.

    And if that wasn’t grounds enough for firing, now that he’s been circulating his illogical little video on the Internet (full of more hostility, no sense of wrongdoing, and incriminating statements), I’m sure that lawsuit would go really well. Maybe the Wingnut Daily is hiring?

  15. TANK says

    You’re wasting your time, ernie…DR’s a teabaggin’ homohater of superstitious persuasion ala glenn beck.

    To take an extreme minority case of “crying persecution” (which is the same for DR in cases of black americans in the 30’s,40’s, 50’s and before, and hispanics–or any other minority), and “overreact”, and extrapolate from that that this douchebag’s telling the truth (itself termination worthy), reveals that we’ve got a breeder troll amongst us. Don’t forget, DR doesn’t believe that hate crimes exist, and believes that matthew shepard killed himself.

  16. DN says

    I’ve encountered Mr. Vadala on facebook’s Stand for Marriage Maine page. I have tried to reason with him, and I can assure everyone here that this man holds a rabidly anti-gay animus, and he showed that animus well before his October 30 termination. I even saved screenshots of some of his best comments. Some gems include:

    “Civil rights is not performing detestable acts with a chicken, and nor [sic] is it performing detestable acts upon another person of the same sex.”

    “perverts continue to demand to be treated as if their acts of perversion warrant respect”

    “We will not have this perversion imposed upon us any longer.”

    “we’ve seen all of the Bay State forced by the Supreme Judicial Court to bend over and grab their ankles. Never again; enough is enough.”

    “If you join a group dedicated to promoting perversion, your opinions on how to rape the masses might gain more traction.”

  17. DR says

    Ah, yes, disagree, and out come the standard ad hominem attacks.

    “Christian” is not a dirty word. “Conservative” is not a dirty word.
    From a legal standpoint, he has every right to express his personal views when someone else is clearly trying to force hers on him. Last time I checked, we did have a First Amendment right to express ourselves, PC sensibilities be damned.

    You may not agree with him, but this is not right in any shape, way, or form. I would have understood a reprimand, but termination? No.

    Of course, this is the same crew calling for anyone’s heads when they use the word “faggot”. Enjoy your victimhood. You’re well-suited to it.

  18. TANK says

    No, DR. As has been explained to you several times now, this isn’t about “disagreeing,” as you insist in the truth of his account–because you’re a homohatin’ breeder bigot. He violated company policy by repeatedly interjecting hate speech into his “disagreement.” Then again, you don’t believe that hate crimes exist…which causes a normal person to believe that your head is so far up your own ass that you’re constantly talking to yourself in some kind of michele bachmannesque echo chamber.

    As to “disagreement” (which vadala was not just doing), yes…saying that, for example, black people aren’t worth the same as white people because of some inherent quality that white people have and black people don’t…is racist and contemptible. Having no evidence to disagree and a lot of reason to agree in THIS case given the number of homophobic assaults that occur in the u.s., and the rabidly antigay rhetoric coming from vadala–is homophobic and contemptible. I think, however, douches like you enjoy being “controversial”. There’s nothing wrong with being controversial, so long as it’s principled, else you just look like an pseudo literate douchenozzle. After all, joe the plumber is “controversial” and so are the teabaggers…LOL! You clown.

  19. says

    DR, you still don’t get it, do you? You and fired-boy are similarly delusional.

    First of all, free speech doesn’t equal speech without consequences. You can’t walk into your boss’s office and say, Hey, Fat Jew, or, I heard your mother’s a redneck whore and expect to land a good promotion. Boundaries exist, particularly at work, everyone knows this.

    Secondly, talking at work about your same-sex fiancee before your legal marriage is not a viewpoint. It’s not an opinion to be disagreed with. It’s simply an ordinary fact. No different than a woman talking about her male fiance. No one in their right mind would claim that a woman talking about her upcoming marriage to a man would constitute forcing her views upon her co-workers, i.e. harassment.

    That fired-boy would consider mention of a same-sex wedding harassment simply shows that he is ill-equipped to work in a state and an environment where gay people are equal under the law. When you can’t deal with basic reality without flipping out, you’re not cut out for that workplace.

    Fundamentalists insist upon making an equivalency between the fact of being gay and an opinion against homosexuality. They are not equivalent. “Disagreeing” with a co-worker’s being (whether it’s related to race, religion, sexual orientation etc.) is clearly against company policy at many places, including Brookstone. If a co-worker had expressed similar hostility towards someone’s faith if he brought up his child’s christening or a bat mitzvah (as in stop forcing your Christian/Jewish views upon me by mentioning this immoral event in my presence), then there would be an equivalency. Imagine if gay people got bent out of shape and started whining about harassment anytime a straight co-worker mentioned his wife or children.

    I get where he’s coming from–ignorant homophobia–but one wonders about gay people who think that talking about our lives could reasonably be construed as objectionable. Gay people who accuse other gay people of wallowing in victimhood tend to be victims of their own internalized homophobia. Of course the only one wallowing in victimhood in this case is fired-boy; he should put it on his resume since it seems to be the one thing he’s skilled at.

  20. DR says

    Ernie and Tank:

    You don’t seem to grasp this. The so-called victim followed him around the shop to continue her discussion with him despite his protests. He doesn’t have to agree with her. Period. If she chooses to force her views down his throat, that’s on her. And of course, she has remained silent, which speaks volumes about this situation; if I were the person being implicated as harassing my hetero coworkers by following them around the shop forcing them to hold conversations they didn’t want to have, I’d be all over the place talking to anyone who would listen. And yet, she hasn’t. Interesting.

    Nothing he said or did meets any legal standard of harassment. You can color and twist it all you like, but she put him in an awkward position and then cried about it when he told her how he felt. That’s PC thuggery in my mind, and she is neither a hero or a victim. I’m familiar with labor law, and this isn’t something which justifies termination. The pattern of so-called abuse was created by the so-called victim. This is nonsense.

    As for the personal attacks, whatever.

  21. says

    Sorry, Doc, cozy up all you want with a homophobe who’d probably like nothing better than to kick your queer ass, but even from his own warped description of what happened, fired-boy was in clear violation of the company’s stated zero-tolerance harassment policy. Talking about your wedding shouldn’t put anyone in an “awkward” position and certainly doesn’t quality as harassment, however much it inflames his tender backwards sensibilities.

    If allowed to elaborate in court, I’m sure he’d only incriminate his clueless self further. He needs to man-up and move on because after his poor-me video tirade (apparently not his first online homophobic tantrum–smart guys don’t leave an Internet trail of intolerance) the odds of him getting his job back went from zero to less than zero.

  22. says

    PC thuggery? More like right-wing Christian paranoid thuggery on his part and on the part of the folks over at the wingnutdaily.

    How can they not see that even if he did once theoretically have a case to make by lying, his own video shoots those chances in the legal foot. It is very clearly a case of harassment if he feels obligated to state that his co-worker was deviant and perverted and involved in “bad stuff” — so articulate, these bigots!

    As the letter shows, she did not harass him in any way. She stated a fact, that she was getting married. He was supportive until he found out it was to a woman. So he can’t even claim that one shouldn’t bring any relationship talk into the workplace — he was happy to congratulate her as long as she was straight. Then out trotted his hate, in the form of his comments.

    Zero tolerance means he gets fired, as he should.

    Oh, and by the way, the woman wasn’t a victim at all. She took appropriate action and had his ass fired. I doubt she feels like a victim! No doubt she feels completely vindicated for doing the right thing.

    But apparently he likes to whine and make himself out to be a victim. It’s just that he isn’t. He brought the whole thing on himself with his stupid remarks.

  23. sassymouth says

    All these Christians getting fired is keeping me young. I have such a smile on my face, and a spring in my step.

    Another Christian was fired in Flordia for wearing a God button to his job at Home Depot. Oh well, I am sure God will provide for these blessed and enlightened followers.

Leave A Reply