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
News: Reverse Wal-Mart's Sexual Orientation Policy
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by I Am Blessed 24, Jul 13, 2003.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
-
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... -
-
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... </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. -
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 -
-
Brian -
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 -
Brian -
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.
-
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 -
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 ] -
>>>>>>>>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'<<<<<<<<
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. -
Peter:
Read the post right above yours by Artimaeus.
You can read the policy yourself by going through any search engine! -
-
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).
-
Time to close the thread.
Thanks for all your input!
Gina
Page 2 of 2