1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

News: Reverse Wal-Mart's Sexual Orientation Policy

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by I Am Blessed 24, Jul 13, 2003.

  1. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    July 2, 2003, 12:35PM

    Gay rights groups hail Wal-Mart.

    Major employer protects workers.
    By SARAH KERSHAW
    New York Times

    SEATTLE -- Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has expanded its antidiscrimination policy to protect gay and lesbian employees, company officials said Tuesday.

    The decision to include gay employees under rules that prohibit workplace discrimination was hailed by gay rights groups as a sign of how far corporate America has come in accepting gay employees.

    Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is the largest private employer in Houston, with more than 20,000 workers.

    The decision was first disclosed Tuesday by a Seattle gay rights foundation that had invested in Wal-Mart and then lobbied the company for two years to change its policy.

    The group, Pride Foundation, which along with several investment management firms holding stock in Wal-Mart had met as stockholders with company officials to discuss the policy, received a letter last week from Wal-Mart outlining the new protections.

    Wal-Mart officials confirmed the change Tuesday.

    LINK
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Discriminating against someone (based on a number of factors, including sexual orientation) is NOT the same as disagreeing with the lifestyle of homosexuals. Treating people fairly in the workplace is NOT the same as being ordered to respect sin.

    Sue, the 'rumor' we are talking about is not the addition of "sexual orientation" to the list of things that people should not be discriminated against for. The 'rumor' we are talking about is getting fired for thinking homosexual activities is sin.
     
  3. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Brian...that came directly from a Christian member of this board who works at WalMart. No one can get fired for what they 'think'. But, they can certainly get fired for stating their convictions.

    This man was told if he were asked by a homosexual co-worker what he thought of homosexuals that he could NOT state his beliefs!

    And this is just the beginning... [​IMG]
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sue, you said people "will get fired if they do not respect the homosexual's lifestyle" and "They are being ordered to respect sin." Do you *honestly* not understand the difference? Do you *honestly* not see you're feeding the exaggeration machine?
     
  5. bobfrgsn

    bobfrgsn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian...that came directly from a Christian member of this board who works at WalMart. No one can get fired for what they 'think'. But, they can certainly get fired for stating their convictions.

    This man was told if he were asked by a homosexual co-worker what he thought of homosexuals that he could NOT state his beliefs!

    And this is just the beginning... [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]If a person is asked their opinion by another he or she has the right to express that opinion. I would suggest that your Christian friend is using hyperbole to make he/her point. Walmart could not handle the law suits that would result from this kind of firing. A persons has the right to be treated with respected for their humanity... and Christians should be leading the pack in showing love and compassion to those with whom they disgree.
     
  6. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Brian, I sincerely hope that is not what I am doing. That certainly is not my intent. But, to my mind, when you are forced to tell a sinner that you condone his sin because you will get fired if you state your true beliefs....that is being coerced into respecting sin.

    I worked with homosexuals at WalMart and no one disrespected them. Obviously, there was no discrimination in hiring or promoting them since they, not only worked there, but held managerial positions.

    My point is...why are they pushing this down our throats? It sounds to me like they don't want 'equal' rights, they want 'more' rights.

    And what they are really after (legalized marriage with benefits) is so totally against Christianity that it gets more difficult to deal with as time goes on.

    Please, let me clarify. I have nothing against homosexuals. I DO have a BIG problem with condoning their sin.

    If I saw a heterosexual co-worker stealing, I would get fired for not reporting it. WalMart demands this. What is going to happen if I see a homosexual co-worker stealing? I can hear cries of 'discrimination' already. :(

    Blessings,
    Sue
     
  7. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Obviously, you have not read the new policy.
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be true, *if one is forced to tell a sinner that you condone his sin*. However, that is not what is going on here! Wal-mart is NOT forcing anyone to say anything! Wal-mart is NOT telling its employees "We force you to verbally express your agreement with homosexuality and we force you to claim it is not a sin".

    That's good. Do you mean you didn't actively discriminate against them? Do you mean you were already doing what the new policy simply made official? Wow. [​IMG] Were you condoning their sin when you worked with them? No, you did not. NOW do you see what the difference is?

    Excellent, I was hoping someone would have a specific example of this. The new policy now makes it official that homosexual managers cannot discriminate against the heterosexual employees under them. Isn't that good?

    How is wanting equal discrimination rights to be considered "more" rights?

    What a good topic for a completely different thread. [​IMG]

    That's fine. Do you have any examples of anyone forcing you to condone sin?

    You can? You must be hearing things. Sexual orientation would have nothing to do with stealing.

    Brian
     
  9. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Brian: I wore a seat belt before it became a law. But I resent being forced to wear one or face a penalty.

    I hope we can agree to disagree on this one in a Godly manner.

    We are listening to each other, but we are not hearing. I respect your views, even though they are different than mine. You have an excellent way of presenting your case.

    Blessings,
    Sue
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I understand what you mean, but then I humbly submit that your problem then is not with the policy itself (since you were already following the policy before it was implemented), but rather with what you perceive the reasons are that had the policy implemented. If you always wore a seatbelt before it became "policy", did you sign petitions and write letters to the car manufacturers when it finally became policy? Why not?

    No problem.

    Thanks.

    Brian
     
  11. supplanter

    supplanter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can not disagree with the policy wal mart has enacted. If companies are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds then we are in trouble. Consider if another religion ever became dominant in america and they did not like people who went to church on sundays. If we have a non-discrimination precedent standard set we would be okay. But if not we could be in trouble. I admit the example is rather silly, but its being used to illustrate a more serious point.
     
  12. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Three page limit warning: thread will close no sooner than 5am. est.
    Ya know, out here Wal-Mart is the only place left to shop for most things since K-Mart went out of business, as did J.C. Penney's. You'd have to go way out of town to buy clothes and stuff.
    Gina
     
  13. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    My modem got fried in a recent storm and I am just now getting back online. I would have jumped in here earlier.

    I will not get fired for what I THINK about homosexuality.

    I don't know how to say this exactly the way I want to but, I will try.

    If I discriminate against someone JUST BECAUSE they are of a differnt race then, I will be fired (and rightly so).

    If I discriminate against someone JUST BECAUSE they are of a differnt sex then, I will be fired (and rightly so).

    If I discriminate against someone JUST BECAUSE they are of a differnt age then, I will be fired (and rightly so).

    If I discriminate against someone JUST BECAUSE they are a THIEF then, I will NOT be fired (and rightly so).

    If I discriminate against someone JUST BECAUSE they are immoral NOW, I will be fired (and WRONGLY so)

    BrianT and Johnv can defend homosexuality as though it has no more significance than whether someone is left handed or not all they want. The fact is that it is an aberant, abnormal, deviant, destructive, immoral, sinful, unrespectable trait, in and of and all by itself. It is totally outside the sphere of respectability and I will not be told by anyone that I MUST show respect to those individuals and that their homosexuality is not to be disrespected. I want the highest quality character people I can find for certain positions and I will not be told that I must consider equally, people with the lowest character for those positions. Race, age, sex, nationality, etc., have absolutely nothing to do with character. Homosexuality has EVERYTHING to do with character. I am now being told that I can't take that into consideration, and that is just plain wrong.

    [ July 16, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]
     
  14. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I have read Wal-Mart's new policy. Have you? They are not keeping it a secret. They released it to the press. It was even in the newspapers. I have also talked to some Wal-Mart employees. I think maybe YOU should check into it more before you label it a 'rumor'&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    It is interesting that you did not quote the part of the policy that you disagree with. If it is as obnoxious as you say it is, how about quoting the portion with which you disagree and let us see how much it resembles your original claim.
     
  15. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Peter:

    Read the post right above yours by Artimaeus.

    You can read the policy yourself by going through any search engine!
     
  16. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite. There are two problems with your statement. First, "discriminate" is NOT the same as "opposing sin" (for the 387th time). Second, if someone is "immoral NOW", that implies they are actively sinning at their job, in this case meaning commiting homosexual acts during working hours. If someone, a homosexual OR a heterosexual is having sex during their shift, speaking up against that will not get you fired, it will get them fired (and RIGHTLY so). *Discriminating* against someone because they are immoral OUTSIDE of work should get you fired (and RIGHTLY so), for the homosexual who actively sins on his own time and not at work is exactly the same as the heterosexual who actively sins on his own time and not at work - which means basically everybody on the entire planet.

    All this time, and you still don't understand my position?

    Again, we see the fruits of the exaggeration machine. The Wal-mart policy IS NOT ABOUT THAT. :rolleyes:
     
  17. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    If their immoral action doesn't affect their job, you should not be able to fire them for being immoral. Who someone sleeps with is of no bearing on their job performance. I don't know who most of the people I work with sleep with. Some have mates, but there are many people who I've just recently found out are married or otherwise coupled, and I've known them for two years (and they've been married or coupled for that long or longer).
     
  18. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Time to close the thread.
    Thanks for all your input!
    Gina
     
Loading...