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

I guarantee you he gets hired back and an apology from Home Depot.

Being legally right doesn't mean what Home Depot does was the right thing.

An employer can have a policy of no buttons except that which is validated by the store as part of the dress code, and this fellow broke the dress code so he was dismissed.

But it's also a bit ridiculous to fire someone for a button that says, "One nation under god" - don't you think? I mean, what - customers are going to be offended by that? If customers complained, and I would be shocked if they did, then Home Depot can ask him to remove it and fire him if he refuses - absolutely.

But if that wasn't the case - don't you think it's really petty???

 

It's petty, but corporations are risk adverse and avoid the mere thought of anything that could cause trouble.

I'm not sure if the internet reaction would be so defensive for the button wearer if it were a "Glory to Allah" pin. Maybe it's because I doubt that A) there are any Muslims stupid enough to wear it and/or B) that there are any who feel entitled enough to wear it in order to prove a wrongheaded point.

So there are several potential negative consequences for Home Depot to allow the button wearer's personal expression on the time they paid him to work. It could start imitators in other areas or catalyze a political atmosphere in the workplace. Some offended customers don't even complain. They just never come back.

 

I DON'T, WANT TO WORK, AT THE HOME DEPOT!!!!!!!

 

First of all I didn't say it strongly enough but that post was not intended to be in the context of the thread or the actions of the man at Home Depot as I have already stated that his actions aren't protected. He should have complied with the wishes of his employer.

My point was that interpretation has been and still is for some that there is a freedom of religious expression protected- 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.

Many have and still hold a basic understanding of the bolded part granting a freedom of religious expression protected by the highest law in the same way that the next statement protects freedom of speech, press and peaceable assembly.

What that man at Home Depot did is not protected by the first amendment in my opinion.

The real issue is are we going to allow a diversity of religious expression, protection for it as a freedom, and certainly exercise the same restraints that are afforded freedom of speech and press.

I certainly do not condone hate, crimes, or abuse in the name of religion.

I know that. I've practiced my religion on you with wonderful memories.
My 'religion' is who I am.

There is no right to force your religion upon an employer. The man should have taken the pin off when he was told.

I react when I feel I am lumped into 'religious' groups that try to legislate Christianity or impose it on the government.

Lumping me with those who are trying to Christianize America through government comes across to me like if you are a Christian in public you are trying to infringe upon others, if you tell people about Jesus you are forcing religion upon them- which really bothers me because I don't like people who do try to force there views on others but 99% of the people I speak with ask me or want to listen to me. And the other 1% get a have good day see you later from me.

I see alot of Christian activists and Christians crusaders and Christians in politics doing things that are just going to bring resentment and reaction from the general public and this is going to hurt the Christians who are trying to give the world a point of reference for the love of Jesus Christ.

I disagree, I think and I might be wrong speaking for him, that Solid is just arguing that there is a protection in the first amendment for religious expression, for all religions and non-religions and just because there are alot of Christians and just because some are crossing lines shouldn't deny that protection.- Maybe that's just my opinion and he meant that there is some protection to abuse a private business such as Home Depot. If that is what he meant I don't agree with that.

I agreed with you on this way back in the thread.

 

CometsWin- I don't want the government to be injected with any religious beliefs, I just reacted because I tend to feel lumped in when a post is made like all Christians are this way.

Just because Solid brought up the first amendment as a protection of religious liberty you shot it down like he was advocating 'making America a Christian nation'

The only way I would even think that way I guess is if every person in America became a Christian; I don't see that happening so I don't even think of America in terms of religion.

I don't want to be lumped with those who I think are crossing the lines by making faith a crusade to force conversions or to establish faith in government.

Hey if a Christian gets elected to government, he should live as a Christian. That's all.

I certainly respect your opinion, I over react at times at the way the term Christian is used.

 

Here's a link to a local news interview with the kid:

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?vi...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklytopvideos

I've missed the latter half of this thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned.

Home Depot has a clear policy about NOT wearing buttons unless they are company-related. Further, HD let this kid wear the button for about a year. Further still, they only came down on him when he started bringing his Bible to work to read on his breaks and at lunch.

The button has been in support of his older brother who is in the Special Forces.

 

So just because he wore the pin for the year means that he shouldn't be fired for failure to stop wearing it when asked to do so? What if a new manager had come in? I understand that these aren't the circumstances, but it's irrelevant. This kid is just attention whoring after being blatantly insubordinate. He could have worn a button that said "United We Stand" in support of his brother. Apparently, he doesn't feel like being united... must be a Glen Beck listener.

This is ridiculous... if you don't like it, shop at Lowes.

 

The reason given for his firing was the button, not proselytizing customers.

 

Don't you think Home Depot is going to piss off more customers firing a guy with a "one nation under god" button than by letting one employee show his patriotism? Because you realize "one nation under god" is part of the pledge of allegiance recited in public schools and "god" is written on every bill Home Depot collects at it's cash registers?

I am not debating whether or not HD is right or not, I am saying it's stupid move from a "risk adverse" perspective. If I am the PR group at HD, I'm definitely in damage control mode.

This is all over the news and blogs...you have Fox News covering it. You think Home Depot wanted this mess? You think if they could do it over they would still fire the guy????

 

IMO it doesn't matter.

 

if religion were viewed more properly as a lifestyle choice, we wouldn't have this problem.

 

precise, you are, master jedi

Well, Congress shall make no law establishing religion- has been stretched way pass laws being passed in the hallowed halls of congress

Point being, you narrow the definition or broaden the definition to fit how you want to interpret it for yourself, that is what courts have done

regardless how it is written, in reality religious freedom in any context does not hinge on the language of the amendment but the preference of federal rulings

in the strictest sense all the amendment states is that congress cannot pass a law that establishes religion and they cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion-

my view is there should be an interpretation applied of the first amendment regarding freedom of religion that is in line with the interpretation regarding free speech and a free press... then we should understand in that context that the freedom to practice religion should not be prohibited any more than free speech is prohibited

if you can burn a flag and be protected by free speech I am fine with that, but if you can't pray before a football game just because a school receives federal funds and 2 people feel they are being abused by the prayer, then you have prohibited a free expression of religion not by congress passing a law but by an interpretation that is not consistent with the other protections afforded free speech etc

if someone is offended by a flag burning they must realize that as long as their flag is not being burned these expressions are protected

I personally don't feel that praying before a football game is what I want to personally fight for please understand I am not really interested in seeing a big change on this, but I understand those who would like to pray before a high school football game and if people are offended I think it is reasonable to think that if they are not forced to participate there could be a reasonable protection of that prayer being a free expression of religion and we should be diverse and tolerant enough not to call the ACLU and file a lawsuit

There is no language in the first amendment that states that funding public works or education in some way establishes religion by law

Example suppose Congress said that if you speak against the government you will lose federal funding. - Why hopefully there would be an outcry because you are prohibiting free speech in a back handed manner.

I think the way to handle abuse of religious expression is to better define and prosecute abuse, hate crime, intimidation and violence- I understand the need to protect the liberty of all by restricting intimidation and forcing religious expression on to others.

Remember the guy who ran around all the sporting events trying to flash John 3:16 onto national TV? To me he was harmless, crazy but harmless. It was free expression of religion.

The next time a high school invites me to come and lead the Commencement moment of silence I think I'll just go up and tell everyone to shut up. (kidding)

 

I doubt it's going to hurt their sales much if at all. I think it's smarter that they enforce the rule before they have 10 lawsuits from people wanting to wear buttons that say all kinds of other things. The rule is there to make things clear and easy for everyone. There is a lot of confusion among many Christians. They don't understand the Jesus doesn't equal America. It might in their minds but it doesn't in the rule of law.

The ones so upset that this kid can't wear his God pin would be the same ones screaming for a Home Depot boycott if they allowed another kid to wear an "Allah Akbar" pin. They are not concerned with protecting free speech. They are concerned with protecting THEIR free speech but not yours if you don't believe what they believe.

This kid will lose if this goes to court.

 

I also understand the problems that if one religious group prays do you exclude the other religious groups? How do you give equal time? How do you accomodate all the religious groups who might want to pray at a school function?

I would say that for me it is not a problem if a school decides not to allow prayer because it cannot accomadate every group that wants to pray, but if it is prohibited because someone doesn't like it then it crosses over to my flag burning example.

I really shouldn't spend this much time on an issue that is like down about 3,451 on my priority list.

Poor persecuted Christians

 

1) It's not like one nation under god hasn't had controversy as well. Companies don't like these statements because there will always be a side that's offended.

2) We don't know how big an effect he had on the workplace. They gave him a similar button and he refused. It's not like HD will say they fired button boy because of how much it pissed off Jeeves the atheist.

3) The PR is bad, but it wasn't corporate who fired button boy. The store fired button boy with the backing of corporate's rules.

As for the point that he did it for a year. So what? I could steal office supplies for a year with my co-workers knowing about it. Does that mean the company should overlook it because there wasn't a hint of a problem in that time?