Good will to all men? Not from the grumpy atheists! (Thank God not all atheists are grumpy but there sure seems to be a lot of them)
Why is it that so many in the atheist community cannot bring themselves to get past their anger whenever they engage in discussions? The language of many of their contributions in public debate is laced with invective and dripping with sarcasm and bile. There are exceptions of course, but they tend to fall more into the category of being the 'exception that proves the rule' when compared to the hostility of many of today's atheist posters. Comment offered by the theists in the public square is often depicted as being 'malicious' or 'venomous' and intended to enslave the 'feeble minded and weak' by those who post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Venom is something that is oriented to death. Christians are oriented in a 180 degree different direction. We speak not to the culture of death that grips our world but rather for the culture of life and light which ends with the gift of eternal life. For example, the Catholic Church in its hum...
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