The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/att
Reflections from the pastoral ministry of an Evangelical Catholic Priest.
Hi Tim,
ReplyDeleteLet me begin by stating that IMO public disagreement on the topic of equal marriage is not de facto hate speech, and it should not be automatic grounds for dismissal from employment.
As much as I think that there are no good and rational reasons why anyone should object to equal marriage, I am also a firm believer in free speech - provided that such speech is not slanderous, libellous, or inciting others to acts of violence or hatred.
I also think public discourse ought to be reality based (ie. free of distortions, lies, and spin) but on this latter point, there is little hope that such could ever be enforced by the law.
Having said all of the above, I also think employers have a right to expect their public representatives (such as television sprtscasters) to reflect corporate values and brand positioning. Wheter or not anyone likes it, Rogers, as a corporate entity, is a leader in equity and anti-discrimination practices. Rogers (rightly or wrongly) has decided that being a tolerant and inclusive corporate citizen is important to its brand image. Rogers has invested heavily in such positioning and branding. Rogers has also apparently decided that Mr. Goddard's remarks are inconsistent with its corporate values and brand positioning.
If Mr. Goddard had said that Rogers was a lousy media company, no one would object to his dismissal. If Mr. Goddard had stated that he opposed the equal treatment of women, or Jews, or Bhuddists, or Evangelical Christians, then no one would seriously oppose his dismissal. In all of these hypothetical examples, Rogers would view such remarks as inconsistent with their brand image and corporate values.
So for any of your readers who are going to jump on the barricades claiming that Mr. Goddard is a victim of political correctness, or that he is a victim of religious persecution, and that he ought not to be fired for his remarks, I would simply ask:
Why is Rogers not free to terminate employment with those who would harm its brand? As long as Rogers pays fair settlement in lieu of notice to Mr. Goddard, why must it tolerate someone who undermines their corporate values and brand image?
Cheers...Martin