Home Depot Employee Fired for Wearing "God.." Button

Except that it's not. The First Amendment is no way, shape, or form applicable to this case. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, however, could be.

You may be convinced of that, but it's not true. Or if it were true, the framers really screwed up, because they very clearly stated the opposite when they drafted the Amendment. And they were more than happy to allow religious discrimination by individuals and businesses through all of their lifetimes. The only thing they actually had a problem with was with government doing the discriminating. Convenient how that fits perfectly into what they wrote into the Constitution, as opposed with what you want to believe they intended to write.

Well, for starters, Button Boy would have had no legal recourse whatsoever in 1963. He potentially does today, if he can prove HD was discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

Just back from out of town, let's try again, but I must admit, I am getting tired of this one. We are simply not on the same page, and there is really no value in continuing, but I will. Would you apply the same narrow definition that you apply to the "free exercise of religion" clause to freedom of speech and freedom of press issues? I suspect you represent the line of thinking pursued by the federal courts in last several decades: a broad view of speech and press and a very narrow and restrictive view of religion. It is not like I am the only person in the history of the country to hold to the "freedom of religion" position. Google Wall Builders, a site maintained by historian David Barton. Go to the search box and type in "religious freedom" then go to "articles on separation of church and state." There are a wealth of letters and documents by the founders which address this issue. Otherwise, to all a good night.

 

You don't understand the First Amendment.

Just because I have the right to yell out obscenities at work does not mean that I can sue my employer if they fire me.

Under your definition of "freedom", an employee can say whatever they want and never be fired for it because the First Amendment protects them.

There is a difference between the government hauling your ass to jail for uttering obscenities and getting fired.

 

This is severely fringe stuff. A historian is someone who objectively tries to understand history. I guarantee you that no legitimate historian of American History with the respect of his peers would give this guy the time of day.

He is a classic revisionist/activist. I understand how you might have a poor understanding of the first amendment if you look to someone like him as your objective authority on history.

Just FYI, David Irving calls himself a "historian" too. Like Irving, Mr. Barton has no degree, even the most basic undergraduate degree, in history. Mr. Barton is also a board member of a group advocating Biblical religious law in America - essentially advocating "Christian sharia" law for the USA. Not exactly an objective background.

 

Yes - just as the framers intended and the courts have ruled! Businesses restrict free speech all the time. If you say negative things about an employer, they often will fire you. Press doesn't really apply since individuals don't really have a press, but businesses certainly can and do restrict individual's "rights" to blog. For instance, the NFL/NBA has been restricting player twittering from the lockerroom.

Do you believe a business doesn't have a right to fire an employee that goes around yelling about how the company sucks?

 

solid, do you believe that employer dress codes and codes of conducts are unconstitutional?

 

WTH are you guys ****ing about, his employer told him to take it off, he didnt, he got fired, he didnt get fired for wearing god job, he got fired for not listening to his employer.

 

Why do people still argue about religion and it's place?? Honestly.

16 pages and all that's accomplished is "some of us don't agree with each other", and that's putting it nicely.

Arguing this topic NEVER ends with any sort of progress on the issue, because faith is an inarguable topic. If you come from a background where it isn't important, or choose that it isn't important, you will never ever agree with the person that finds it central to their very being. You just won't.

It's central to me. Yet, I have aethiest friends. I have a few gay friends. I have at least one Buddhist friend that I'm aware of. There could be other backgrounds mixed in somewhere too. Why are we STILL friends? Because we talked about it, expressed our beliefs and then moved on with life. We agree or disagree and then act like human beings afterward. No need to talk it to death. We joke about our differences, we laugh, we hang out.

We do not purposely antagonize each other. Arguing it, is and always will be POINTLESS.

Get back to the point of the thread - does Home Depot have the right to regulate a dress code, and the answer is YES. YES. YES. OF COURSE they do. All private businesses do. He was asked to take it off. He said no. They offered an alternative. They said take it off or your fired. He declined. He was fired.

There are dress codes at EVERY job I've ever worked. When I worked for Blockbuster, I wore khaki and a blue shirt with a Blockbuster logo. I didn't have the right to wear a Hollywood Video button if I liked it better personally. When I worked at Target, it was khaki and red. We couldn't deviate from slacks and that red shirt. No buttons of ANY kind, no logos or anything of any kind other than that stupid bullseye. When I got into the real world and got on with MD Anderson it was casual business. Slacks, nice shirt. I don't care if your chosen "rebel moment" is a pin with "In God We Trust" or "Yay, Go Rockets". You don't get to wear that. PERIOD.

The problem here is, his DID say God and God is a buzzword. Just because it said "God" it's a buzzword. But the blanket policy is that Home Depot has a dress code. It doesn't matter what you throw on that little blue apron. It doesn't matter if you wanna throw on a UT orange and white neckerchief to celebrate Vince Young Day or any other thing that isn't allowed in the dress code set forth by the employee handbook that you are given and told to read over and SIGN before you're hired. And it doesn't matter if they let it go for a year, two years or three. As soon as they decide to enforce it, happy time is over.

All that matters in this issue is: Was it presented to you when you were hired? Yes. Did you sign off on this when you were hired? Yes. Is it discriminatory? According to what we know, it was a blanket dress code statement and didn't even address religion. It addressed how employees are to be dressed - "buttons not given by the company", so it doesn't appear discriminatory. At that point, if your manager says take it off, you take that crap off.

All the rest, the first amendment, the evils of religion and faith and blah blah blah - all that - it doesn't matter anymore after that.

It's jus an excuse for anti-Christians to talk some more about how evil Christians are and an excuse for the other side to talk about how evil liberals are.

And it got me to rant.

D**n you people.