Friday, October 20, 2006

Pro-Homo Employer Declares War On Normality And Its Advocates

H/T to James Atticus Bowden, who first reported on the firing of a Harrisonburg man fired for daring to express an opinion differing from his employer's:

Harrisonburg Man Fired for Supporting Marriage Amendment

RICHMOND – A Harrisonburg man was fired from his job last week apparently for displaying a sign in his personal vehicle that showed his support for Virginia’s Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

“It appears that Mr. Padilla’s civil rights have been violated in an egregious act of viewpoint discrimination and violation of his right to free speech,” said Victoria Cobb, spokesperson for “It is abundantly clear that those who seek to impose same-sex marriage on society are not at all interested in tolerance of other viewpoints. And they are willing to go so far as to destroy a man’s family and take his livelihood to get their way. I believe that when they hear this story, the people of Virginia will be appalled.”

Luis Padilla, an employee of Cargill, a large employer in the Harrisonburg area, was fired from his job last week for displaying a sign on his personal vehicle. The sign read, “Please, vote for Marriage on Nov. 7."

Upon receiving an initial warning from his employer about the sign, Mr. Padilla removed the sign from his personal vehicle, replacing it only after driving his vehicle off company property. Mr. Padilla’s boss had led him to believe that this would be an acceptable course of action. When he returned to work the next day, Mr. Padilla was careful to park his vehicle outside the company parking lot so as to minimize the “offense” the sign allegedly caused to co-workers.

Despite these efforts to comply with his superiors’ demands, company officials terminated Mr. Padilla’s employment, citing concerns about harassment as the basis for their actions. Rita Dunaway, senior Legal Advisor for the Valley Family Forum, a local grassroots chapter of The Family Foundation of Virginia, sent a letter to Cargill urging his immediate reinstatement.

Yesterday, Cargill responded with a letter rejecting that plea. In their letter, Cargill stated, “Cargill is not required to allow Mr. Padilla to impose his beliefs on his co-workers.”

“It is appalling that a company like Cargill that claims to value diversity would terminate an employee for merely expressing an opinion about the Marriage Amendment,” said Mrs. Dunaway. “Companies that truly value diversity encourage, rather than punish, the benign, respectful type of private expression for which Mr. Padilla was fired. There is simply no way that this sign could have been considered harassment.”

“The action taken by Cargill against Mr. Padilla, the father of two young children, is a tragic example of political correctness run amuck,” according to Valley Family Forum Director Dean Welty. “This action exposes the hypocrisy of people who claim to stand for 'tolerance' but who instead do all they can to silence all opposing views. In this case, those who accuse Mr. Padilla of 'harassment' have themselves become the 'harassers'."

“ and The Family Foundation are currently talking with attorneys to determine what legal options are available to Mr. Padilla,” added Cobb. “We hope this action won’t be necessary and that Cargill will do the right thing by reinstating Mr. Padilla immediately and taking aggressive steps to ensure that this kind of employee harassment and intimidation does not occur again.”"

This is entirely consistent with the far Left's and radical homosexual lobby's war on normality, and demand not merely for tolerance, but for acceptance, detailed in places like David Limbaugh's book Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity.

Another story appears in today's Daily News Record, and gives more of the company's viewpoint. It's abundantly clear, however, that the company's actions are political correctness gone mad.



Rick Sincere said...

Would you say it was "despicable" if Mr. Padilla had been fired for having a "Vote No on Ballot Question 1" sign on his truck?

Be honest.

James Young said...

No, because then he would have been advocating perversion, Rick.

I guess I missed your flaming post about how unfair it is to fire this man for his behavior. Or am I wrong to assume that you supporting adding homosexual behavior to the list of protected categories?

jamie said...

With all of the rhetoric and hypocrisy that abounds when talking about this subject, one glaring point keeps making itself again and again.

The "conservatives" who are so concerned about the welfare of our judeo-christian nation and our adherence to a christian way of life are INVARIABLY HOPELESSLY OBSESSED WITH ANYTHING SEXUAL. Homosexuality, abortion, freedom of speech (i.e. pornography), contraception.

You guys need to get your minds out of the gutter, in my opinion. There is a lot more to life than just sex.

James Young said...

That's a fascinating comment, Jaime, but suffers from the same logical fallacy that blames George W. Bush for terrorists simply because he dares to defend Western civilization against their assault. My suspicion is that you are the product of a government education, since you seem to fail to understand that 5000 years of civilized societies have condemned homosexuality, and abortion was unlawful under the Common law, and unknown to the first nine score years of constitutional law. In fact, it is the far Left that has sought to constitutionalize sexuality, and perverse sexuality, not "conservatives," so you really need to spare us the sanctimony.

And clearly you don't understand that freedom of speech was designed to protect political speech, not obscenity, though I would probably agree that it must be tolerated in a regime of free speech, no matter how unrelated to political speech. I wonder how you feel, therefore, about so-called campaign finance "reform"? As for contraception, I agree with Justice White that the law at issue in Griswold was "an uncommonly silly law," but hardly one of constitutional import.

But thanks for reading!

jamie said...

That my well be the most ridiculous and incorrect response to a comment I've ever seen.

Yes, I was going for the cheap laugh. I admit. But for you to go and be so hopelessly wrong with so many of your assertions? tsk. tsk.

As for your "state education" remark. Yes, I did attend public schools for primary, secondary, and higher education, and if you care to compare SAT or IQ scores, please let me know.

In 5000 years of "civilized society" as you call it, homosexuality was legal in, to mention a few, the Greeks, Romans, Norse, and Celt societies. Yes, I have references. Yes I will share.

Your Common Law remark is a joke, as, at one time or another, most everything imagineable has been both legal and illegal under common law. And to say that abortion was "unknown" to any body of law at any time in recorded history is to be hopelessly ignorant of the societies that your are misrepresenting.

And as for the "Left" dragging sexuality on the political stage, you have that one wrong as well. The "Left" has long sought to leave sexuality out of the laws, keeping it with the individual rights of the people where it belongs. But those crazy, small government (small-minded?) "conservatives" need to be right about everything, including how they have sex on Saturday nights, so there needs to be a law about it.

And as for Freedom of Speech in the US Constitution being designed to provide for "Political Free Speech" only? Here is the actual amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where do you get that garbage from? How is that amendment at all ambiguous???

James Young said...

Well, Jaime, your first sentence makes clear that you don't read your own comments. As for your desire to "compare SAT or IQ scores," you might want to rethink that, to the extent that you apply "thought" at all, since you labor in utter ignorance of law and history. Of course, from what I know about your age, comparing the former would be meaningless, in light of the re-centering which occurred between the times we took them.

It's fascinating that you would deny that which Justice Blackmun conceded (that abortion was illegal under the Common Law; I refer to Blackstone, of course), even as he was ignoring its import. But I'm delighted that you're willing to share your pro-homo revisionist histories. I'll put them right up there with my copies of Zinn, Marx, and Lafeber. And just as obviously, to suggest that abortion was "unknown" to constitutional law is not only reasonable, it is historically sound, as the document does not speak to the issue. Liberal (and pro-abortion) constitutional scholar John Hart Ely famously commented in the wake of Roe v. Wade that "it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

And yes, the "Left" has clearly been the political cohort "dragging sexuality on the political stage," since it is necessary to disparage, denigrate, and destroy the natural and/or traditional family structure in order to empower the State, the goal which is at the heart of all Left-wing/socialist/totalitarian creeds. It is a concession that goes back to early French Socialists, and if you knew your history, you wouldn't bother to dispute the point. Of course, your attempt to confuse "sexuality" with "sexual behavior" is a ignorant as most of your comments, since "sexuality" is, of course, not addressed by the law, while sexual behavior, like other anti-social behaviors, of course, is.

Finally, I was, of course, referring to the "design" of the First Amendment, i.e., its primary purpose. It's too bad that you are so steeped in your irrational hatred of anything Conservative and/or constitutional that you can't even take a concession where one is freely given. By the way, the First Amendment is apparently "ambiguous" enough that the Supreme Court has validated restrictions against anti-abortion protestors, federal and state regulations limiting the right to donate to the political candidates of one's choice, and federal and state authorization of forced-unionism requirements.

I note that you had nothing negative to say about those (pro-Left) limitations on free speech and association. Where do you Lefties find ambiguities sufficient to allow those blatant violations of free speech?

jamie said...

Ah, James,

You obviously have more time on your hands to flex your very impressive mind than I do, so I'll keep this short. I simply don't have time to play right now.

Please support the statement you made about the "Left" dragging sexuality out onto the political stage with the sinister purpose to destroy Western civilization? What bill was introduced? What law was passed that supports your claims that it was all the "liberals" fault that this issue is before us? Substantiate your rhetoric, please. And please, for the love of all that's holy, don't mention the "gay agenda", or "liberal agenda". I know several gay people, and am myself a liberal, and I have never seen a single memo go out about any agenda.

As for your comments about regulating people standing in front of abortion clinics, campaign contributions, and "forced unionism".

abortion clinics - anyone who wants to say anything should be able to stand on public ground and peaceably say it. The problem is that the crowds in front of abortion clinics are often not peaceful. Thus the regulation.

campaign finance - I think every political campaign should last 6 weeks, should be allowed a total of 10 commercials, should be given an equal amount of money for yard signs and chicken dinners, and there should be a minimum of 10 debates. That way we could actually find some of the issues in politics, instead of just finding out who has the richest friends.

forced unionism - when was the last time a company was forced to unionize by the federal government? more to the point, when was the last time that happened in Virginia???

conservatives also never mention the liberal triumphs of women's suffrage, world war ii, or the civil rights movement.

Rick Sincere said...

I don't believe there should be any "protected categories" for which the government directs employers in matters of hiring and firing.

From your response to my question, it is obvious you don't care that Mr. Padilla's "freedom of speech" was violated, since you say that you would approve of his firing if the content of his message conveyed opposition to the Marshall/Newman Amendment, rather than support for it.

The fact is, the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech apply only to the government and citizens. Employers are -- or should be -- able to set their own standards for behavior and expression on the job and in the workplace. Any employee who violates those standards can be dismissed at will.

And just to make it clear, I would not have objected if Cargill dismissed Mr. Padilla for posting an anti-Ballot Measure 1 sign on his car. That's a matter of principle for me.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought your position was that a private employer was free (or should be free) to hire or fire anyone of his choosing.

I recall that was your position regarding the firing of gay employees - that an employer should be free to terminate at will. You wrote about this on the now defunct "Too Conservative".

Is that no longer the case?

Bryan J. Scrafford said...

Although you can never know if you are going to get all of the details by reading a news account (in fact you most likely won’t) it does appear as though the step of firing Mr. Padilla was a bit extreme IF all he did was simply display a written message on his truck’s back window. What I wonder, however, is if there was anything else that potentially happened that could have played into the decision to let Padilla go. For instance, had he been discussing the topic at the workplace in a manner that had made some of his co-workers uncomfortable? If that was the case, I could understand how some people could feel discriminated against if Padilla then proceeded to write the message on the back of his car and park it on company property. (It should be noted that this wasn’t just a bumper sticker, it was a large handwritten message. You can see the message by following the link that James dismissed as merely promoting the company’s side of the argument. Furthermore, the car was still being parked on company property after Padilla wasn’t parking in the parking lot.) As I said, however, it is hard to pass judgment not knowing how much of the story is actually being made available to us.

I believe your argument completely went out the window, James, when you stated that you wouldn’t have thought Mr. Padilla’s rights would have been violated if he was fired for expressing his opposition to the marriage amendment. You simply cannot have it both ways. The message of your post was that people should be allowed to express their political views, even if there are some people who disagree with them. Therefore, the same logic should be applied to someone whose opinions are different than yours. Yes you might believe that their way of thinking is perverse, but they, and many other people, wouldn’t think so. You therefore cannot argue that freedom of speech only applies to people who have the same opinion as you. After all, some people might think that your view on this issue is a little out of the mainstream.

NoVA Scout said...

It sounds like it got sorted out. No one should be fired for expressing a political opinion. Padilla's opposition to Marshall-Newman should not have been held against him. He clearly has a sound conservative take on this liberal effrontery. All's well that ends well, I guess.