Personal Values

Would you sign a statement, required by your employer, requiring you to value something you did not value?  I wouldn’t.  What if you would be fired if you did not sign such a statement.  Would you sign then?  I wouldn’t.  The Washington Times reports on just such an event in an article titled “Worker opposed to gays wins suit.”

Of course the headline is phrased in such a way as to make the individual opposed to homosexuality seem heartless, cruel, and just so old-fashioned.  Come on guy, get with the program, opposition to homosexuality is so 1960’s.  But let’s look at a couple of excerpts from the story.

“Mr. Buonanno objected to language in a new employee handbook issued in January 2001 that said “each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us,” including sexual orientation. He was fired after refusing to sign a “certificate of understanding” acknowledging that he agreed to the policy.”

Before you state hammering on Mr. Buonanno for being a homophobe, consider this.

“Mr. Buonanno felt his Christian beliefs prevented him from valuing or agreeing with homosexuality, which he views as a sin, but he pledged not to discriminate against or harass anyone, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, the group that represented Mr. Buonanno.”

Knock Mr. Buonanno’s Christian beliefs all you want, even non-Christians may not value homosexuality.  Requiring anyone to sign such a statement of value is akin to early church practices requiring individuals to sign statements of acceptance of the pope, and the church’s rule, or be burned at the stake.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/07 at 07:49 AM

  1. “Requiring anyone to sign such a statement of value is akin to early church practices requiring individuals to sign statements of acceptance of the pope, and the church’s rule, or be burned at the stake.”

    They only required that as a condition of employment. Now they are compelled at gunpoint to pay someone who declined to accept the conditions they offered.

    His views and their policy are irrelevant to the real moral issue here: The employer ought to be free to offer whatever terms of employment it chooses.

    Being fired is not like being burned at the stake, you have a right to your life but not to a job with an employer whose terms you won’t meet.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  04/07  at  03:11 PM

  2. John, your statement in regards to the employer setting the terms of employment, and an individuals acceptance of those terms, or not, is correct.  I suppose I should have said that the only reason the employer is requiring such an oath, is because the government has brought them to such a state of affairs in order to remain a going concern.  AT&T is only requiring this oath to conform to the state’s requirements to do business with the state.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/08  at  05:05 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: More on Scientology's Coziness to the IRS

Previous entry: What's The Frequency, Baby?

<< Back to main