Religions > Atheism > Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dr Dave W" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2004 08:43:06 PM |
| Object: |
Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was singled
out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious symbols
and pro-diversity posters.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that Peterson was
not a victim of religious discrimination. The Palo Alto-based company had
the right to enforce an evenhanded policy against harassment and
discrimination, the court said.
Peterson was fired ``because he violated the company's harassment policy
by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment'' and
disobeyed managers' orders to remove the postings, Circuit Judge Stephen
Reinhardt said.
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 09:20:26 AM |
|
|
Dr Dave W wrote:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was singled
out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious symbols
and pro-diversity posters.
Death threats are NOT "religious symbols and pro-diversity posters."
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that Peterson was
not a victim of religious discrimination. The Palo Alto-based company had
the right to enforce an evenhanded policy against harassment and
discrimination, the court said.
Peterson was fired ``because he violated the company's harassment policy
by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment'' and
disobeyed managers' orders to remove the postings, Circuit Judge Stephen
Reinhardt said.
And that is as it should be.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 10:23:49 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Dr Dave W wrote:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was singled
out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious symbols
and pro-diversity posters.
Death threats are NOT "religious symbols and pro-diversity posters."
They didn't give the actual text of his posters, but to be a "death
threat" there has to be a specific instruction to kill a person. Bible
verses about how homosexuals should be put to death doesn't constitute
an actionable "death threat".
That said, it doesn't take away the fact that he 'created a hostile work
environment'.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 11:58:09 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vvr10o8cld4f8c@news.supernews.com...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Dr Dave W wrote:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was
singled
out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious symbols
and pro-diversity posters.
Death threats are NOT "religious symbols and pro-diversity posters."
They didn't give the actual text of his posters, but to be a "death
threat" there has to be a specific instruction to kill a person. Bible
verses about how homosexuals should be put to death doesn't constitute
an actionable "death threat".
I find that highly questionable California penal code includes "which
involved the express or implied threat" in section 187 which directly
relates to murder.
A non related code 67 has :"5) "Threat" means a verbal or written threat or
a threat implied
by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal or written statements and
conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the
threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to
reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate
family."
Certainly if I say in conjuction with a threat, "You'll never be seen again"
I am not giving instructions, yet the threat is clear.
Nowhere does the penal code say specific instructions have to be made in a
death threat nor are there any sections that deal with it.
It is probably simple assault.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 12:34:10 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vvr10o8cld4f8c@news.supernews.com...
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Dr Dave W wrote:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was
singled
out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious symbols
and pro-diversity posters.
Death threats are NOT "religious symbols and pro-diversity posters."
They didn't give the actual text of his posters, but to be a "death
threat" there has to be a specific instruction to kill a person. Bible
verses about how homosexuals should be put to death doesn't constitute
an actionable "death threat".
I find that highly questionable California penal code includes "which
involved the express or implied threat" in section 187 which directly
relates to murder.
A non related code 67 has :"5) "Threat" means a verbal or written threat or
a threat implied
by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal or written statements and
conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the
threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to
reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate
family."
Certainly if I say in conjuction with a threat, "You'll never be seen again"
I am not giving instructions, yet the threat is clear.
I probably should have said "Instruction or intention".
You're threatening to do it yourself, which is *intention*. "My
followers should make sure that you're never seen again" would be
*instruction*.
Nowhere does the penal code say specific instructions have to be made in a
death threat nor are there any sections that deal with it.
It is probably simple assault.
Even simple assault requires a specific threat to use force, AND a
specific target. "I'm going to beat you up" is assault. "I'm going to
beat up the next guy who calls me a gay-basher" is not.
"The Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death" isn't a death
threat. "The Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death, and I'm
going to start in right now" IS a death threat.
This is the same quibble that keeps Fred Phelps from being convicted for
his antics.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 03:57:20 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vvr8l4de3srg98@news.supernews.com...
Mike Painter wrote:
I probably should have said "Instruction or intention".
You're threatening to do it yourself, which is *intention*. "My
followers should make sure that you're never seen again" would be
*instruction*.
Nowhere does the penal code say specific instructions have to be made in
a
death threat nor are there any sections that deal with it.
It is probably simple assault.
Even simple assault requires a specific threat to use force, AND a
specific target. "I'm going to beat you up" is assault. "I'm going to
beat up the next guy who calls me a gay-basher" is not.
Depends. 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
"I'm going to beat you up" or the more famous "I'm going to kiss you" are
not assults if they are done when the person does not have the present
ability.
Hmmm, there's one I've never heard. "I'm going to hit you" and I'm on the
other side of the room would normally not be considerd an assult. What
about "I'm going to hit you tomorrow" while standing next to the guy?
Probably right up there with "Can you steal a cat?" (We were told no in my
police acadamy and that night at dinner with two attorneys I asked and one
said that his first case as a DA was prosecuting somebody that stole a cat.)
"The Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death" isn't a death
threat. "The Bible says that homosexuals should be put to death, and I'm
going to start in right now" IS a death threat.
This is the same quibble that keeps Fred Phelps from being convicted for
his antics.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 04:42:15 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vvr8l4de3srg98@news.supernews.com...
Mike Painter wrote:
I probably should have said "Instruction or intention".
You're threatening to do it yourself, which is *intention*. "My
followers should make sure that you're never seen again" would be
*instruction*.
Nowhere does the penal code say specific instructions have to be made in
a
death threat nor are there any sections that deal with it.
It is probably simple assault.
Even simple assault requires a specific threat to use force, AND a
specific target. "I'm going to beat you up" is assault. "I'm going to
beat up the next guy who calls me a gay-basher" is not.
Depends. 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
"I'm going to beat you up" or the more famous "I'm going to kiss you" are
not assults if they are done when the person does not have the present
ability.
What about "I'm going to shoot you" while pointing my finger in my pocket?
Hmmm, there's one I've never heard. "I'm going to hit you" and I'm on the
other side of the room would normally not be considerd an assult. What
about "I'm going to hit you tomorrow" while standing next to the guy?
Bloody law-school exam questions.
Probably right up there with "Can you steal a cat?" (We were told no in my
police acadamy and that night at dinner with two attorneys I asked and one
said that his first case as a DA was prosecuting somebody that stole a cat.)
That's a good one. Did he get a conviction? :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 06:40:23 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vvrn67grmu9c6f@news.supernews.com...
Mike Painter wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vvr8l4de3srg98@news.supernews.com...
Mike Painter wrote:
I probably should have said "Instruction or intention".
You're threatening to do it yourself, which is *intention*. "My
followers should make sure that you're never seen again" would be
*instruction*.
Nowhere does the penal code say specific instructions have to be made
in
a
death threat nor are there any sections that deal with it.
It is probably simple assault.
Even simple assault requires a specific threat to use force, AND a
specific target. "I'm going to beat you up" is assault. "I'm going to
beat up the next guy who calls me a gay-basher" is not.
Depends. 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a
present
ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
"I'm going to beat you up" or the more famous "I'm going to kiss you"
are
not assults if they are done when the person does not have the present
ability.
What about "I'm going to shoot you" while pointing my finger in my pocket?
No ability. (and I was deathly afraid for my life because I saw him with a
gun before, that's why I shot him)
Hmmm, there's one I've never heard. "I'm going to hit you" and I'm on
the
other side of the room would normally not be considerd an assult. What
about "I'm going to hit you tomorrow" while standing next to the guy?
Bloody law-school exam questions.
Probably right up there with "Can you steal a cat?" (We were told no in
my
police acadamy and that night at dinner with two attorneys I asked and
one
said that his first case as a DA was prosecuting somebody that stole a
cat.)
That's a good one. Did he get a conviction? :-)
I can't remember it was a few years ago (1969 or so)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 10:16:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 07:20:26 +0000, Gregory Gadow wrote:
Dr Dave W wrote:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was
singled out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious
symbols and pro-diversity posters.
Death threats are NOT "religious symbols and pro-diversity posters."
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that Peterson was
not a victim of religious discrimination. The Palo Alto-based company
had the right to enforce an evenhanded policy against harassment and
discrimination, the court said.
Peterson was fired ``because he violated the company's harassment policy
by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment''
and disobeyed managers' orders to remove the postings, Circuit Judge
Stephen Reinhardt said.
And that is as it should be.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you." -- Benjamin
Franklin
I wonder how Mr Peterson would have reacted to having his fellow employees
put up posters advocating stoning women to death for wearing pants, or for
doing yard work on the Sabbath Day.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang" |
|
| Title: Re: Court: HP had right to fire employee who posted anti-gay messages |
08 Jan 2004 02:44:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:43:06 GMT, Dr Dave W
<askme@formyaddy.comINVALID> wrote:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7654634.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hewlett-Packard had the right to fire an employee
who posted anti-gay messages at his cubicle to protest the company's
diversity policy, a federal appeals court ruled.
HP had fired Richard Peterson, who worked in the company's support
division in Boise, Idaho, after he displayed passages from the Bible
about making gay sex punishable by death.
Peterson, who worked at HP for more than two decades, said he was singled
out. He said other employees were allowed to display religious symbols
and pro-diversity posters.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that Peterson was
not a victim of religious discrimination. The Palo Alto-based company had
the right to enforce an evenhanded policy against harassment and
discrimination, the court said.
Peterson was fired ``because he violated the company's harassment policy
by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment'' and
disobeyed managers' orders to remove the postings, Circuit Judge Stephen
Reinhardt said.
I have a Christian coworker and a gay coworker. If I post a message in
my cubicle saying that Christians should be put to death, I would be
fired. If I post a message in my cubicle syaing that gays should be
put to death, I would be fired. When you sign a contract with a
private company, you are expected to follow their policies. If Mr.
Peterson cannot abide by company rules, he is free to seek employment
elsewhere.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -486 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
