Full Version: Man fired over lapel pin
In the city of Hoover, which is an affluent suburb of Birmingham, the Chamber of Commerce has fired it's Membership Services Director over the wearing of a lapel pin that depicted the Ten Commandments.
Now the man has stated that he started wearing it in support of Judge Roy Moore's fight to place the Ten Commandment monument in the state courthouse. But the pin itself is fairly small and innocuous.
Link
Now, this IS NOT a debate about religion. Rather the debate questions are:
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
Now the man has stated that he started wearing it in support of Judge Roy Moore's fight to place the Ten Commandment monument in the state courthouse. But the pin itself is fairly small and innocuous.
QUOTE
The former membership services director for the Hoover Chamber of Commerce said he was fired Tuesday because he refused to remove a Ten Commandments pin from his lapel.
Christopher Word, a Gadsden native who attends the same church as former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, said he felt he was discriminated against.
Word said he began wearing a small gold lapel pin in the shape of the Ten Commandment tablets in January. The pin contained only the Roman numerals one through ten.
"I've been wearing that pin because I personally support the Ten Commandments and the public display of the Ten Commandments," Word said.
Christopher Word, a Gadsden native who attends the same church as former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, said he felt he was discriminated against.
Word said he began wearing a small gold lapel pin in the shape of the Ten Commandment tablets in January. The pin contained only the Roman numerals one through ten.
"I've been wearing that pin because I personally support the Ten Commandments and the public display of the Ten Commandments," Word said.
Link
Now, this IS NOT a debate about religion. Rather the debate questions are:
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
I am not sure. This would definitely fall under the category of symbolic speech. We have a teacher at our school that is in dress code, but wears all black every wednesday to protest the decision to implement a dress code for our students. I the firing listed in this thread with the chance that my colleague might get fired for protesting school policy in his symbolic way. However, I think my school might have a stronger legal standing than the hoover Chamber of Commerce.
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
I am not sure. I would like to think this is more of a power struggle between employee and employer.
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
That's a great and complicated question. And I am not sure of the answer. I would not have asked the person to remove the pin. But I would be upset with my colleagues for wearing one, or a political party pin, every day in their classes.
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
I would like to think that yes he would be fired if he was making another type of political statement every day. I don't see an anti-Christian bias in our society, and I definitely didn't see it in Alabama when I lived there for six years.
I am not sure. This would definitely fall under the category of symbolic speech. We have a teacher at our school that is in dress code, but wears all black every wednesday to protest the decision to implement a dress code for our students. I the firing listed in this thread with the chance that my colleague might get fired for protesting school policy in his symbolic way. However, I think my school might have a stronger legal standing than the hoover Chamber of Commerce.
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
I am not sure. I would like to think this is more of a power struggle between employee and employer.
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
That's a great and complicated question. And I am not sure of the answer. I would not have asked the person to remove the pin. But I would be upset with my colleagues for wearing one, or a political party pin, every day in their classes.
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
I would like to think that yes he would be fired if he was making another type of political statement every day. I don't see an anti-Christian bias in our society, and I definitely didn't see it in Alabama when I lived there for six years.
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
All private institutions are permitted to apply and enforce dress codes. If this was in fact a violation of a stated dress code, well then, he should have been fired.
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
Well he himself stated that he wore it to promote his belief that the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed in public. Sounds like a personal religious crusade to me.
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
To be determined by the employer. You can't wear a Burger King hat while taking orders at McDonalds, but nobody is saying that Micky Dees discriminates against Burger King employees.
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
If he was asked to remove it and failed to then YES. He was asked to do remove it, he didn't. When my boss asks me to do something, I do it. The work place is no place to express your religious beliefs.
Here is one for you..........An employee wears a hat to work that says "PORN STAR". His boss asks him to remove it. He doesn't and gets fired. Is the Porn industry going to come to the fired employees aid and claim that he was discriminated against because he likes to promote porn?
All private institutions are permitted to apply and enforce dress codes. If this was in fact a violation of a stated dress code, well then, he should have been fired.
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
Well he himself stated that he wore it to promote his belief that the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed in public. Sounds like a personal religious crusade to me.
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
To be determined by the employer. You can't wear a Burger King hat while taking orders at McDonalds, but nobody is saying that Micky Dees discriminates against Burger King employees.
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
If he was asked to remove it and failed to then YES. He was asked to do remove it, he didn't. When my boss asks me to do something, I do it. The work place is no place to express your religious beliefs.
Here is one for you..........An employee wears a hat to work that says "PORN STAR". His boss asks him to remove it. He doesn't and gets fired. Is the Porn industry going to come to the fired employees aid and claim that he was discriminated against because he likes to promote porn?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 19 2004, 12:07 PM)
In the city of Hoover, which is an affluent suburb of Birmingham, the Chamber of Commerce has fired it's Membership Services Director over the wearing of a lapel pin that depicted the Ten Commandments.
Now the man has stated that he started wearing it in support of Judge Roy Moore's fight to place the Ten Commandment monument in the state courthouse. But the pin itself is fairly small and innocuous.
Link
Now, this IS NOT a debate about religion. Rather the debate questions are:
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
Now the man has stated that he started wearing it in support of Judge Roy Moore's fight to place the Ten Commandment monument in the state courthouse. But the pin itself is fairly small and innocuous.
QUOTE
The former membership services director for the Hoover Chamber of Commerce said he was fired Tuesday because he refused to remove a Ten Commandments pin from his lapel.
Christopher Word, a Gadsden native who attends the same church as former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, said he felt he was discriminated against.
Word said he began wearing a small gold lapel pin in the shape of the Ten Commandment tablets in January. The pin contained only the Roman numerals one through ten.
"I've been wearing that pin because I personally support the Ten Commandments and the public display of the Ten Commandments," Word said.
Christopher Word, a Gadsden native who attends the same church as former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, said he felt he was discriminated against.
Word said he began wearing a small gold lapel pin in the shape of the Ten Commandment tablets in January. The pin contained only the Roman numerals one through ten.
"I've been wearing that pin because I personally support the Ten Commandments and the public display of the Ten Commandments," Word said.
Link
Now, this IS NOT a debate about religion. Rather the debate questions are:
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
I would have no qualms with a chamber employee wearing such a pin. I believe that the individual should be allowed to wear it since I believe that the first amendment does not end at your employers doorstep.
At the same time, I believe that governmental employees should not wear such things since as public employees, they are paid by every taxpayer-religious or not and should reflect that interest.
If the rules are spelled out, the business has the right to make restrictions on what its employees may wear.
I have noticed that often these restrictions are not enforced on a consistent basis, however, and I suspect that many members here would agree. Sometimes it just depends on who gets ticked off about the jewelry or apparel.
Yes, the man wearing the Ten Commandments tie pin constitutes activism. He has stated a clear reason for wearing it beyond "I just like it."
Yes, the Chamber of Commerce is practicing discrimination, but in the sense that there are already rules in place that they choose to enforce. Their goal, I suspect, is to be as free from controversy as possible in the workplace so as not to incur criticism from those with whom they deal. Now, will they be consistent as other challenges to their dress code surface?
I have noticed that often these restrictions are not enforced on a consistent basis, however, and I suspect that many members here would agree. Sometimes it just depends on who gets ticked off about the jewelry or apparel.
Yes, the man wearing the Ten Commandments tie pin constitutes activism. He has stated a clear reason for wearing it beyond "I just like it."
Yes, the Chamber of Commerce is practicing discrimination, but in the sense that there are already rules in place that they choose to enforce. Their goal, I suspect, is to be as free from controversy as possible in the workplace so as not to incur criticism from those with whom they deal. Now, will they be consistent as other challenges to their dress code surface?
I find dress codes of limited use outside the police or armed forces.
I think in all cases where an employer wants you to wear particular clothes, they should either provide them for you or resign themselves to dress code infringements. IMO, any role that has no contact with customers or public should not carry any restrictions (except perhaps those of public decency, which are generally legal ones anyway). I don't care what you wear - if you get the job done you can do it in a pink tu-tu and an orange wig if you want to.
In public and customer contact, though, business dress is mandatory, IMO. My rule of thumb is, if I present to you, you can wear what you like. If you present to me, put a (expletive deleted) tie on.
I think that in such public or customer contacts, a company or body has the right to insist that nothing is discordant with the way they want to come across. If they don't want to endorse a sports team, no sports shirts for particular teams should be visibly worn (so a sports mascot tattoo is okay, if business dress conceals it. If they don't want to represent any religion, no religious garb should be worn (a cross around the neck is fine if it cannot be seen.
After all, Christianity does not insist that the proselytising it expects from its practitioners take the form of wearable symbols, or that it has to be constant and obsessive. (Even Sikh's do not HAVE to wear turbans - that is just the traditional way of keeping the uncut hair Sikhism DOES insist on tidy.)
I think in all cases where an employer wants you to wear particular clothes, they should either provide them for you or resign themselves to dress code infringements. IMO, any role that has no contact with customers or public should not carry any restrictions (except perhaps those of public decency, which are generally legal ones anyway). I don't care what you wear - if you get the job done you can do it in a pink tu-tu and an orange wig if you want to.
In public and customer contact, though, business dress is mandatory, IMO. My rule of thumb is, if I present to you, you can wear what you like. If you present to me, put a (expletive deleted) tie on.
I think that in such public or customer contacts, a company or body has the right to insist that nothing is discordant with the way they want to come across. If they don't want to endorse a sports team, no sports shirts for particular teams should be visibly worn (so a sports mascot tattoo is okay, if business dress conceals it. If they don't want to represent any religion, no religious garb should be worn (a cross around the neck is fine if it cannot be seen.
After all, Christianity does not insist that the proselytising it expects from its practitioners take the form of wearable symbols, or that it has to be constant and obsessive. (Even Sikh's do not HAVE to wear turbans - that is just the traditional way of keeping the uncut hair Sikhism DOES insist on tidy.)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the Chamber of Commerce is in no way a government agency. Is it funded in any way by the government? If so, I think you could make a case for a discrimination lawsuit here. If not, it's just a case of a private organization with a legal but stupid policy.
I support absolute separation of church and state, and the maximum possible freedom of religious expression for individuals.
First question: Assuming the Chamber of Commerce is in no way associated with the government, I would say they have a legal right to this policy. Let me make it clear that I think this policy is an extremely bad one, and I would protest it strongly.
Second question: I would say that it is (legal) discrimination, and I do not approve of it.
Third question: This is a huge topic, and all I can say is "it depends." In general, I favor as much personal freedom as possible in the workplace. Reasonable expressions of religious and political opinion should be allowed (although it may not be possible to force private organizations to do this.)
Fourth question: I would be surprised if the members of the Chamber of Commerce were not overwhelmingly Christian, so I would expect that expressions of another religion would be even more likely to lead to a loss of job.
I support absolute separation of church and state, and the maximum possible freedom of religious expression for individuals.
First question: Assuming the Chamber of Commerce is in no way associated with the government, I would say they have a legal right to this policy. Let me make it clear that I think this policy is an extremely bad one, and I would protest it strongly.
Second question: I would say that it is (legal) discrimination, and I do not approve of it.
Third question: This is a huge topic, and all I can say is "it depends." In general, I favor as much personal freedom as possible in the workplace. Reasonable expressions of religious and political opinion should be allowed (although it may not be possible to force private organizations to do this.)
Fourth question: I would be surprised if the members of the Chamber of Commerce were not overwhelmingly Christian, so I would expect that expressions of another religion would be even more likely to lead to a loss of job.
Well, to me it is just plain stupid to fire this person. I am a business manager (mostly small businesses) and in 25 years of managing I have encountered all kinds of employees. Almost all of them either, never had political/religous beliefs, or kept them quiet.
There was one exception. In my previous job I managed a woman who was a fervent Christian. She kept a Bible on her desk and read it at lunch time. I am an Atheist. I couldn't give a stuff as to what she believed. She was a lovely woman and a hard-working, productive employee. She called a meeting with me one day and asked if I could stop the staff from using "curse words" within her earshot (in particular, the F-word). It deeply offended her.
Did I fire her? Did I fire people for swearing? No. I fired no-one. I gently approached all the staff, told them of the problem and asked them to not use swear words in earshot of this employee and explained why. Everyone liked her and, out of respect, they never cursed again in front of her. It was real easy to do. Some apologized to her for having done it in the past. There was no change in any relationship. In my experience Americans (I'm originally a Brit) are extremely tolerant and polite. They get on with anybody and don't confuse work with their personal beliefs.
As for the the Chamber of Commerce guy? I understand where his employer is coming from. He/she is worried that non-Christians will not join the Chamber. Nonsense. I am about to join a local Chamber of Commerce and if the recruiter had been wearing the "Ten Commandments" pin or a turban, I really couldn't care. I think that no business people care either. We join the Chamber to advance our business and if I was wearing an Atheist pin (is there one?) I am sure that this man would have actively sought my membership and clapped if I had joined.
There was one exception. In my previous job I managed a woman who was a fervent Christian. She kept a Bible on her desk and read it at lunch time. I am an Atheist. I couldn't give a stuff as to what she believed. She was a lovely woman and a hard-working, productive employee. She called a meeting with me one day and asked if I could stop the staff from using "curse words" within her earshot (in particular, the F-word). It deeply offended her.
Did I fire her? Did I fire people for swearing? No. I fired no-one. I gently approached all the staff, told them of the problem and asked them to not use swear words in earshot of this employee and explained why. Everyone liked her and, out of respect, they never cursed again in front of her. It was real easy to do. Some apologized to her for having done it in the past. There was no change in any relationship. In my experience Americans (I'm originally a Brit) are extremely tolerant and polite. They get on with anybody and don't confuse work with their personal beliefs.
As for the the Chamber of Commerce guy? I understand where his employer is coming from. He/she is worried that non-Christians will not join the Chamber. Nonsense. I am about to join a local Chamber of Commerce and if the recruiter had been wearing the "Ten Commandments" pin or a turban, I really couldn't care. I think that no business people care either. We join the Chamber to advance our business and if I was wearing an Atheist pin (is there one?) I am sure that this man would have actively sought my membership and clapped if I had joined.
Does a quasi public/quasi private entity like a Chamber of Commerce have the right to dictate a type of lapel pin, amulet or medallion that can be worn by employees?
In terms of the law, yes, private employers do have the right to set restrictions (and the Chamber of Commerce is a private employer).
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
From what I've read, the Hoover Chamber of Commerce is defending their position on the grounds that the employee was not fired for religious beliefs, but because the employees words and actions expressed political views, which conflicted with the Chamber of Commerce's neutral position on the Justice Moore / Ten Commandments controversy. They have accused the employee of promoting the legal and political fight of the former Chief Justice; that the employee was fired over politics, not religion. Unfortunately, I think the political aspect is deeply overshadowed by the religious overtones in this case.
As an aside, I think that the Chamber reacted in a manner that was too heavy handed (my subjective opinion). If they felt the ten commandments pin was too much of a political statement, couldn't they have asked him to just remove it first, without firing him on the spot? Legally, however, they were still within their rights.
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
I'm not sure. It is really a tricky issue, since we cherish individual freedoms and individualism, but in our commerical society, private employers are free to retain or not retain employees at will, with exceptions for those legally protected classes in the hopes of preventing the invidious discrimination our society abhors (racism, etc.) People often forget this when they consider the term "discrimination." We tend to think any discrimination in employment is illegal, when in reality private employers are allowed to legally discriminate, as long as it is not discrimination against any of the protected classes. Political statements and activism are not protected.
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
If the analogy was complete in every sense, i.e., the pin depicted another religious point of view besides Christianity, but the true reason for the firing was because the employee was making a political statement? I guess so. I'm sure there would be outrage from the "new" religious group in this hypothetical scenario, but the employee would be stuck with the same problem.
In terms of the law, yes, private employers do have the right to set restrictions (and the Chamber of Commerce is a private employer).
Is this a case of discrimination by the chamber, or religious activism by the employee?
From what I've read, the Hoover Chamber of Commerce is defending their position on the grounds that the employee was not fired for religious beliefs, but because the employees words and actions expressed political views, which conflicted with the Chamber of Commerce's neutral position on the Justice Moore / Ten Commandments controversy. They have accused the employee of promoting the legal and political fight of the former Chief Justice; that the employee was fired over politics, not religion. Unfortunately, I think the political aspect is deeply overshadowed by the religious overtones in this case.
As an aside, I think that the Chamber reacted in a manner that was too heavy handed (my subjective opinion). If they felt the ten commandments pin was too much of a political statement, couldn't they have asked him to just remove it first, without firing him on the spot? Legally, however, they were still within their rights.
What should be the standard, or what should and should not be acceptable for employees to either wear, or keep in their workspace, in terms of personal freedoms and individualism?
I'm not sure. It is really a tricky issue, since we cherish individual freedoms and individualism, but in our commerical society, private employers are free to retain or not retain employees at will, with exceptions for those legally protected classes in the hopes of preventing the invidious discrimination our society abhors (racism, etc.) People often forget this when they consider the term "discrimination." We tend to think any discrimination in employment is illegal, when in reality private employers are allowed to legally discriminate, as long as it is not discrimination against any of the protected classes. Political statements and activism are not protected.
Do you think that he would have been fired if the pin depicted a religious view other than Christian?
If the analogy was complete in every sense, i.e., the pin depicted another religious point of view besides Christianity, but the true reason for the firing was because the employee was making a political statement? I guess so. I'm sure there would be outrage from the "new" religious group in this hypothetical scenario, but the employee would be stuck with the same problem.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.