Please also see the follow-up to this post.
I was watching the evening news tonight, something I do rarely, when my attention was caught by a local item about a man named Peter Vadala being fired from his job because he “expressed his opinions” about gay marriage.
The story went on to clarify: a coworker mentioned that she was getting married to another woman, he apparently told her at length how wrong he thought gay marriage was. She complained to HR and he got the sack. The termination letter was then described, in which the company essentially said, you’re welcome to your beliefs but don’t use them to make other people uncomfortable in the workplace. Now he’s on MassResistance.org telling people in other states that if their state legalizes gay marriage, they too could be fired.
The real lesson of Peter Vadala, though, is that if you can’t keep from using your beliefs as a bludgeon, you can be fired. And rightfully so.
Here’s the letter I wrote to him through MassResistance:
I’m sorry for Peter Vedala that he hasn’t learned an important professional lesson: don’t impose your beliefs on others.
I’m also sorry that he hasn’t learned about Christian charity.
I was further sorry to see him digging himself in further in continuing to claim that he is being persecuted for his faith. If I were his manager, I would have terminated him in a heartbeat for creating a hostile work environment, and I would have had cause.
Hi Tim,
You mention Christian charity above. Are you a Christian? If so, would you explain what you believe Christian charity is?
Thanks.
Tim Jarrett, your a moron namely because you fail to see that it was the dyke who made comments about her “personal life” and he expressed his personal belief’s.Keep up the Christian hate, It only strengthens us.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
(Matthew 5:10-12)
Love how homosexuality should be embraced in society, and if your a Christian with morals and have an issue with it, then you become the hate monger and the target of hate.It is comparable to people having issues with the Obama admin. and those people being labeled racist, or as far back as shortly after Waco, the Bush admin. labeling Militia’s as terrorist.
As long as I am breathing, I will never hesitate to express who I am, a Christian, and namely because God commands me too.
I love how the religious bigots always have the worst grammar and constantly use the wrong version of “your”. It’s you’re a moron. Moron.
Art, thanks for your question. I owe a fuller answer on this topic, but briefly:
Eric, you’re welcome to your view, but I was taught as a child that Christ loves everyone and that he doesn’t judge (see, for instance, John 8:7-11). And if he doesn’t judge the sinful (and a woman taken in the very act of adultery is certainly sinful), then neither should we. Further, I want you to point me to someplace in the Bible where Christ proclaims homosexuality to be wicked. Be sure to distinguish between Christ and those claiming to speak on his behalf.
Jamie, let’s meet kicks with kindness. I don’t think Eric needs any help digging himself a hole.
Well said, Tim.
It was the Manager who repeatedly brought up the the oxymoron that she was married, clearly bating Peter.
He was fired due to the intolerance gay’s have towards anyone in tune with the Natural Law and won’t put a seal of approval on their lifestyle.
She was harassing him.
Fred: First, gay marriage isn’t an oxymoron in Massachusetts, where this incident took place.
Second, do you have a source (link) that you can share for this version of events, or are you making assertions based on hearsay? We’re pretty far into he said/she said territory, so some sort of clarity around exactly what is said would be helpful. Without it, we’re speculating with no context and working with whatever biases we bring to the table (“she provoked him” vs. “he harassed her”).
Tim,
I will look forward to your fuller answer on Christian charity. I applaud your saying that you were “uncharitable” in your initial letter to Peter. I’m guessing you must have anticipated my follow-up questions. So while you are musing on your “fuller answer”, here are some other questions for you:
1. Rather than terminating Peter “in a heartbeat, how could you have shown Christian charity toward him?
2. How could the female co-worker have shown Christian charity toward Peter?
3. How could Brookstone have shown Christian charity toward Peter?
One could argue whether or not Peter Vadala should have been fired for expressing a personal opinion about homosexuality and whether his statements actually constituted discrimination. Maybe, maybe not.
But that’s not the issue here, because that’s not the point Mass Resistance is trying to make. Mass Resistance is trying to turn this into an argument about same-sex marriage, when same-sex marriage has nothing to do with what happened. It’s actually a huge red herring.
In the video on that page, Mr. Vadala himself states that he was fired “because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong. That’s the reason that I was fired.”
He also says that at the end of the workday, after the employee again brought up her fiancee, he told her, “Regarding homosexuality, I believe that’s ‘bad stuff.'”
He then refers to the fact that he was just “expressing my sincere belief that homosexuality is wrong.”
What Mr. Vadala is really trying to do is defend a right to discriminate against homosexuals, not a right to discriminate against married gay couples. Mr. Vadala would have been fired even if same-sex couples could not legally marry in Massachusetts.
What if the incident took place in, say, Maine, where same-sex marriage remains illegal? Suppose the employee had repeatedly mentioned not her fiancee, but her female life partner, and Mr. Vadala got tired of it and decided to respond, “Regarding homosexuality, I believe that’s ‘bad stuff,'” and then later stated, “I was just expressing my sincere belief that homosexuality is wrong”?
The termination letter from Brookstone states that “we maintain a healthy, safe and production work environment free from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, national origin, physical or mental disability.” Presumably this policy existed even before same-sex couples had the legal right to get married in Massachusetts; most companies have had such anti-discrimination policies in place for years, since long before same-sex couples could legally marry in any U.S. state.
So one could argue whether or not Vadala’s statement constituted a firing offense. But one cannot argue that the facts of this incident have anything at all to do with same-sex marriage. The outcome would have been the same either way.
Let’s not pretend that the legalization of same-sex marriage is going to oppress people because of their religious beliefs. This is about discrimination against gay people, married or not.
Hi Jeff,
You say that “What Mr. Vadala is really trying to do is defend a right to discriminate against homosexuals…” I assume from what you wrote that you believe Mr. Vadala is guilty of discrimination in this case. Is that true? If so, what exactly was the act of discrimination that he committed?
Thanks.
It is not at all my “view” it is the word of God.It troubles me thou, that you consider yourself a Christian at all.You embrace wordly views, views of abomination, desires of the flesh, and detestable acts.Things that God says are an abomination.Why skirt the issue of well it has got to be a verse that “specifically states”,what the “Lord” said it.Seriously?, then you don’t have much faith in the entirety of God’s word, which happens to be the entire bible not what you pick and choose.
[ 1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. ]
[ Revelation 3:15-16 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. ]
[ Leviticus 18:22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ]
[ Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. ]
[ Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. ]
Does God love, yes but that doesn’t negate the fact that we will be judged for our sins.He did after all send his son, Jesus Christ to die for all mankinds sins.All of man has free will, if you choose to make bad judgements in your life, then you will be judged!
[ Ecc 3:17 I said to myself “God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man,” for a time for every matter and for every deed is there. ]
[ Romans 2:16: In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. ]
Eric:
If you believe the entire Bible is God’s word and there are no contradictions, then you’re not reading it closely enough.
Or else, I hope you’re giving the shellfish industry at least as hard a time as you are giving people who are in loving and committed relationships. Read your Leviticus: eating shellfish is an abomination too.
You’re prooftexting, buddy.
If you can read the whole New Testament and still think that Christ does not love gays, you’re not reading it closely enough.
Art:
As I said, it’s arguable whether or not Vadala should have been fired for expressing a personal opinion about homosexuality and whether his statements actually constituted discrimination. So I should have said in that other paragraph that “What Mr. Vadala is really trying to do is defend a right to speak out against homosexuals, not a right to speak out against married gay couples.” The point is that Mass Resistance is saying that this is what will happen if same-sex marriage is legalized, and the point I am making is that they are wrong, because what happened had nothing to do with same-sex marriage and would have happened even if same-sex marriage were not legal in Massachusetts.
“”If you believe the entire Bible is God’s word and there are no contradictions, then you’re not reading it closely enough.””
Again, can’t really logically call yourself a follower of Christ, when you call the Bible that tells of God and Christ works a contradiction.
“”Or else, I hope you’re giving the shellfish industry at least as hard a time as you are giving people who are in loving and committed relationships. Read your Leviticus: eating shellfish is an abomination too.””
You will use, at your convience God’s word’s, but then say eating shellfish is too an abomination.Well, I get ill when I eat it so not an issue, other than that, what does it have to do with homosexualaity being “wicked”?
“”You’re prooftexting, buddy.””
“”If you can read the whole New Testament and still think that Christ does not love gays, you’re not reading it closely enough.””
Not sure where you got, that I did say he didn’t love them.What I said was, “Does God love, yes but that doesn’t negate the fact that we will be judged for our sins.”
[ Ecc 3:17 I said to myself “God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man,” for a time for every matter and for every deed is there. ]
Every man, who has heard the truth and chooses to reject it will be held accountable for his or her actions, you will have no excuse.
Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Eric, thanks for coming by the blog and sharing your thoughts. I’d quote Scripture back at you but I don’t think it would help. I pray that you gain the charity to accept the love that two people have for each other without feeling obliged to judge them.
Art, haven’t forgotten my promise to follow up on the charity issue. I hope to get to it tonight.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the update on the charity issue. Your exchange with Eric is causing me to have many other questions, but I will wait and give you a chance to respond to what I have already asked. Take care.
Jeff,
I’m trying to understand your response, so here is a question for you:
There was a time in this country when there were laws against a black person and a white person marrying each other. At that time there were many people, black and white, who did not approve of interracial marriage. Eventually those laws were struck down. However, there are still many people, black and white, who do not approve of black people marrying white people. If a white person were to express that opinion in public, would you consider that person as having attacked someone? If so, which group would be under attack: the white people or the black people?
Your right, I don’t think it would help when you twist scripture to suit your agenda.Yep, I’ll use that charity when I am thinking about what Leviticus 20:13 says, If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their guiltiness is upon them.
It’s interesting too, see God expects me to even love people like you, the kind of people that stray other people from the path with their version of God.
Art —
If a white person were to express that opinion in public — no, if a person of any race were to express that opinion in public — I would consider that person to have attacked interracial couples and their children. I can’t imagine being a biracial kid and having to listen to someone say that your parents shouldn’t have been allowed to get married.
Why do you ask?
Jeff,
I think I am struggling with the notion of the expression of an opinion being equated with an attack by the person expressing that opinion. I am trying to understand how a verbal expression is equal to discrimination simply because one party does not agree with it. If expressing a different opinion is, in fact, equal to discrimination and attack, then aren’t the female co-worker and Brookstone guilty of “attacking” Vadala? I would argue that their “attack” was harsher than his because Vadala’s was only verbal- Brookstone’s punishment for disagreeing with their opinion was loss of Vadala’s livelihood.
In my example, I would not want to have to hear people say that they don’t believe in interracial marriage. But I understand that not everyone will have the same opinion I do. I honestly would not feel that I was being attacked, even though I might be quite upset inside. I would see them more as commenting on or “attacking” a social construct. I WOULD feel that I was under attack if those same people acted to prevent me from having a job to take care of my family. I would feel under attack if they threatened my family’s safety or prevented my children from attending a school or playing in a park or going to a movie theater.
Yes, people often say things that hurt us, but that may be part of the price for having the right to free speech.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks Art.
I think the problem here is that you and I are trying to make two different points. Perhaps I have this wrong, but it seems to me that you’re arguing that Vadala should not have been fired merely for stating his opinion. As I’ve said a couple of times in this comment thread, I am not sure whether he should have been fired either. So I don’t necessarily disagree with you on that. I don’t know how many times I need to say it.
My point is different. My point is not whether he should have been fired. My point is that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with what happened. The reason this is important is because Mass Resistance is taking this incident and trying to turn it into an example of the bad things that happen to conservative Christians when same-sex marriage is legalized. But the facts of the case would have been the same even if same-sex marriage were not legal in Massachusetts.
I don’t see anything in the video or in the termination letter claiming that Vadala stated a belief that same-sex marriage is wrong. Vadala himself says in the video that his problem is with homosexuality in general.
It is true that the termination letter mentions that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. But here’s why the letter mentions it. According to the letter, Vadala states that he was provoked into telling the female employee his opinion because she “repeatedly and without provocation presented her view on the topic of homosexuality by referencing her so-called fiancée.” The letter points out that she was not “presenting her view” on the topic of homosexuality; she was stating a fact, that she has a female fiancée — just as, if they were not married, she would be stating the fact that she had a female partner. She would not be stating “a belief” that she had a partner; she would be stating a fact. Suppose she and her partner were not married, but they had adopted a child together, or one of them had given birth and the other had legally adopted the child as a second parent. Suppose, in that situation, that she kept mentioning her child? She wouldn’t be “stating a belief” that they had a child together; she would be stating a fact that this was legally their child.
Vadala is basically saying, “She started it by bringing it up.” But that would be the case whether or not marriage were legal, because having a spouse or a life partner, or having a child with someone, is not a “belief”; it is “factual in nature.” Mass Resistance is trying to make this about marriage, when marriage really doesn’t affect the situation at all.
So I think you and I are trying to make two different points, and again, I don’t necessarily disagree with the point you are trying to make. It’s just that I’m trying to make a different point.
Jeff,
Yes, I think you’re right: we are making two different points. Your point was getting obscured for me precisely because I was looking at a different aspect than you were. Thank you for the clarification.
Let’s accept that the legalization of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with what transpired. What, in your opinion, DID have something to do with what happened?
Eric,
I was looking back over some of your earlier posts, especially the ones where you cite a number of scriptures. I get the general idea of most of them. However, one puzzles me. You quote Matthew 7:6 :
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” In the context of this discussion, I’m not sure what Tim should learn from this verse. What lesson/message are you trying to convey by using this particular verse?
Eric,
I was looking back over some of your earlier posts, especially the ones where you cite a number of scriptures. I get the general idea of most of them. However, one puzzles me. You quote Matthew 7:6 :
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” In the context of this discussion, I’m not sure what Tim should learn from this verse. What lesson/message are you trying to convey by using this particular verse?
“There comes a point, when it’s clear the discussion has becomes not worthy of God.I highly doubt he wants me to argue His point.”
Hi Eric,
I think God would want you to always “argue His point.” But the manner in which you argue is as important as the argument itself.
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,…” 1 Peter 3:15 .
And just fyi, you might like to read Jesus’ words in Mark 7:14-19. It’s a short answer as to why shellfish is no longer an abomination.
I think God would want you to always “argue His point.” But the manner in which you argue is as important as the argument itself.
Art,
See but that is the thing, I am not gonna waste my breath on some man who in one breathe tried to use God’s word to back up his ideal, and in another breathe use it against a Christian.
That is why the whole shellfish bit was amusing, it means nothing to me, and frankly in all likelihood was directed toward the Jews.Even if it didn’t I still don’t care.
“”Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,… 1 Peter 3:15.””
This verse is interesting, but the choice of words in it tells me it has nothing to do with what I have said here.Primarily because of the word “hope” Hope has absolutely nothing to do with why I believe what I believe, Faith would be more appropriate.
As for “gentleness and respect” well, your not gonna find me gently or respectfully telling Tim my point of view when he is spreading lies about what the Bible does in fact say.
I gave three very obvious verses, if you don’t get it, then it is rejection plain and simple.God doesn’t sugarcoat it, so neither will I.
Eric, I’m sorry, but you can’t call me a liar on my own blog. I’ve been pretty clear about distinguishing where I’ve been talking from my own convictions and when I’ve been quoting from the Bible. Please do me the courtesy of responding civilly.
Since you asked about the shellfish point, here’s my frame of reference. The language in Leviticus that is used to talk about homosexuality is the same as that used to discuss shellfish (it is called “an abomination”). So if you hold up Leviticus against homosexuality, it’s fair play to ask you about shellfish which is similarly prohibited.
But, you ask, what about Acts 10, and Peter’s vision of the table set with shellfish and other unclean creatures. The voice of the Lord tells him to eat, Peter protests, and the Lord replies, “Don’t call anything impure that I have made clean.”
What does Peter do? Does he go out and eat a bunch of shellfish? No, he goes to the house of the hated Romans and tells them that, while his law prohibits him, the Lord has told him he should not call any man impure or unclean. Does this sound familiar? The point of the passage in Acts is that God asks us to accept all people, even those that in Levitical times were called unclean or abominators.
With respect to Romans, if you read that passage and then read Romans 2:1, it’s hard to escape the interpretation that God is asking us not to be judgmental, especially in light of Romans 12:17-21 and Romans 14.
Eric, I’m sorry, but you can’t call me a liar on my own blog. I’ve been pretty clear about distinguishing where I’ve been talking from my own convictions and when I’ve been quoting from the Bible. Please do me the courtesy of responding civilly.
“I’d respond to that but, I will hold that thought cause the rest definitely needs clearing up”
Since you asked about the shellfish point, here’s my frame of reference. The language in Leviticus that is used to talk about homosexuality is the same as that used to discuss shellfish (it is called “an abomination”). So if you hold up Leviticus against homosexuality, it’s fair play to ask you about shellfish which is similarly prohibited.
“True, but it isn’t just called an abomination, its called a detestable act, and indecent acts.Not to mention,(Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman,both of them have committed a detestable act.)That is pretty black and white statement.”
But, you ask, what about Acts 10, and Peter’s vision of the table set with shellfish and other unclean creatures. The voice of the Lord tells him to eat, Peter protests, and the Lord replies, “Don’t call anything impure that I have made clean.”
What does Peter do? Does he go out and eat a bunch of shellfish? No, he goes to the house of the hated Romans and tells them that, while his law prohibits him, the Lord has told him he should not call any man impure or unclean. Does this sound familiar? The point of the passage in Acts is that God asks us to accept all people, even those that in Levitical times were called unclean or abominate.
“Again, with the same worldly blather.Any man can show love and charity, but by telling him because the Bible makes it clear this isn’t something kosher that he should just accept, but it isn’t acceptance it is a compromise of my morals and my values.One which won’t be compromised by anyone or anything as long as I have anything to say about it.”
With respect to Romans, if you read that passage and then read Romans 2:1, it’s hard to escape the interpretation that God is asking us not to be judgmental, especially in light of Romans 12:17-21 and Romans 14.
“Same as above chief, just not clicking with you is it? I am not being at all judgmental, I have only expressed word for word exactly what scripture says about it.Then you will use some other verse to deflect mine.God loves all his children, but something you gotta remember that doesn’t mean he is gonna love the sin.”
Yea, but I did call you a liar, not exactly something that can be taken back, nor do I intend to.
You lie and spread misinformation about what the bible does in fact say, based on your own biased homosexual embracing mentality.I pity you, when you draw your last breathe and your standing before God at the Great White Throne of Judgment.Maybe then you can try explaining that God doesn’t judge.
People like you is why there is religion, and so many, because man always has to put their own tainted version of what they think the bible says to conform to their own ideals or indiscretions.
And every single person you lead away from the truth with your lies, well you would be held personally accountable for that on your day of judgment.
Eric, I’m sorry, but it is you who will be judged for leading people away from Christianity. Ironic, but it is because of the general hypocrisy and hate-filled messages like yours that led people like me away from “Christianity”, which has become a vehicle of oppression and self-victimization, rather than love.
Eric is clearly a bigot. He cherry picks a religious text belonging to another religion after it’s been through 5 or 6 major translations. Jesus never mentioned men having sex with men, and it’s not in the 10 commandments. And actually, you aren’t supposed to covet your neighbor’s male slave, as if it is OK to fondle your own male slave. And you are supposed to stone your own child to death for lighting a fire on the sabbath. When will these loonies start pushing for enforcement of that one?