Man Said Fired over God Pin - Home Depot

It's called religious discrimination!

"According to the EEOC, employers must allow employees to engage in religious expression at work as long as it doesn't create an undue hardship. And employers may not restrict religious expression more heavily than other forms of expression that have a similar impact on workplace efficiency."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29504.html

haha the dollar idea is marvelous.

That day ain't coming soon.

Unfortunately, you are correct

Actually, it is not. Home Depot is a publicly traded company, so they have to adhere to Federal anti-discrimination laws, which, among other things, forbid such religious discrimination.

Their policy about buttons is ok IF it is equally enforced between groups, whether religious or political.

This guy has a bare chance at winning, if only because of the year J_J keeps yammering about. BUT, he has to prove that it was widely ignored, so that other employees were allowed to get away with it as well as him. That would most likely negate the affect of it on him, because to selectively enforce it on him, WOULD be discriminatory.

But the ball is in his court, and he has to prove it was widely enough ignored to become a de facto policy.

Don't be such an angry bunny.

NEONBUNNY ANGWY!!!

whew, sounds like you really believe in a free society with open opinion and expression. american contradiction at work, right here!
i am an expat, and damn glad too, had to be done to preserve my sanity.

I'm all for a free society with an open expression and opinion. I'm not saying we should have laws that say an American that thinks this country is horrible is forced to leave, I'm saying that it's absolutely insane for them to stay. If they truly believe it's horrible then say goodbye, exit the country, move. What i'm doing is making them admit it's not as bad as they say. That if it were, the logical and reasonable thing to do would be to leave. The fact is, no matter how many times they say this country is horrible, they know deep down it's one of the greatest places to live in the world. In fact, it's so damn great it lets them have the opinion of thinking it's horrible and still living off the many prosperities it brings.

Don't think that because I state someone should leave if they hate the country I'm some sort of fascist saying it in an ultimatum form. I'm saying that one SHOULD leave not that one HAS TO. Honestly, this is only logical is it not? Why stay somewhere "horrible" when you have the freedom to leave? Isn't self-preservation and happiness the end goals of human reasoning and action? Just makes no sense to me.

the problem is that you think everyone has the opportunity to leave. the people that are most beaten down by the system here do not have the resources to up and relocate to another country. whether they like it or not, they are here, so why try not to make it better for everyone? america seems to have become a country of the free, as long as you already have money and job and live in certain regions and have ideas that conform with one of the two major parties in the country.
what I am hearing from you is that criticizing the status quo is unamerican.
now, i understand there are naysayers who will criticize the country and government no matter what, but the thing is, the reason why i criticize is because i want to see this be a better country, one that will remain at the forefront of global issues. one that is willing to adapt and change, because if it is one thing history has taught us its that resisting development and progression only results in demise.

"you say his country blows but my guess is you live in America as well. Beyond me why you wouldn't just move if you truly believe this (we have open borders for American citizens). If you don't like it, get the hell out. And if you're not getting the hell out, then you must understand it's a pretty damn awesome country. If you're from another country, my apologies. but Americans that say this country blows piss me off. Doesn't bother me when Americans think this nation needs improvement, but to hate it or think it terrible is an absolute insult."

I am from another country, and your country does need improvement, therefore, in it's current state, it blows.

I was parked at a red light some months back and watched a homeless man receive a bill of some amount from the Caddy in front of me. I then watched a County Sheriff do a u-turn, pull in front of the caddy, get out and make the homeless dude give the money back to the man in the caddy.

Not sure if it is the country that suck's or the power's that be.

Powers that be is what I'm referring to.

fair enough. But when you make a blanket statement "Your country blows"...
well you seem bright enough to understand how it could be misconstrued.

How about "The Ruling class in your country blows"?

Your country blows had a better ring to it.

Why did they allow him to wear it for an entire year before saying anything?

Just like any other law or rule it probably took someone complaining to bring it to their attention but in the end it really does not matter why he was allowed to wear it for so long... The fact is that he was given a chance and did not take it.

They didnt allow him to wear it, they might not have noticed, cared, or paid any attention to it. He GOT AWAY with wearing an UNAPPROVED pin for a year. As pointed out several times, someone could have complained or brought it to the attention of his boss. Your argument is all semantics and no substance.

Plus he is claiming its not religious and so are you JJ...he is saying that is all about loving 'country', what a crock of shit because if it were ONLY about loving country then he would have accepted the other pin that was offered to him which made the same point. but he didn't.

Allowing someone to do something for an entire year is allowing them to do it no matter if it's noticed or not.

You have not explained why they allowed it reasonably enough.

He'll win in court because of that alone.

J_J... Rules are rules regardless of how long or how many times you break them without consequences. By the logic you are trying to push here, if you get away with murder 5 times they can not enforce the 6th time (when they catch you) because you got away with it in the past. Whether it is a law or company policy is irrelevant if you break it there are repercussions.

JJ- what legal credentials do you hold? you keep speaking about 'legal' this and that, but it just sounds like hot air.

True. People get offended by the term Christmas. I don't celebrate that holiday and I don't care if other people celebrate it or call it what it has always been called. Hearing winter holiday and the like is just silly. It's the whole duck is a duck thing.

But what is wrong with OTHERS that don't celebrate the christian holiday of christmas (but DO celebrate a winter holiday) using a different name to describe what THEY celebrate?

Maybe you don't really celebrate a holiday at all (lots of people don't really) and that's fine. You can still call the day christmas, if you are describing the holiday that most christians observe on the 25th of December.

But if you are talking about what other people are doing instead of christmas, then use that name.

It's simple really, more and more people celebrate christmas in a totally secular way. Santa isn't the St. Nicholas from Germany or the Scandinavian countries anymore, he has morphed into a different character in the US, one that is most decidedly NOT christian, but almost totally secular and commercial.

Almost every element we use to symbolize christmas has parallel uses in other, older religions or cultural traditions that have nothing to do with christianity.

I think that gradually, the name christmas will fade from use at least by those that don't celebrate the religious aspects of that day. Obviously, that is already happening.

It may be because I live in the midwest, but I hear "christmas" still used all the time. You can use it if you want, it's not a big deal, the problem is that you get all high and mighty when someone doesn't want to say it back.
do what you want, say what you want, but don't try to make me.

Out of town. He'll text later.

LOL! Good one!

Not there because this wasn't about religion.

"Not there because this wasn't about religion."

Crap.

If the guy had been wearing some stupid button about the Easter Bunny, we'd all be in another article instead of posting about this one, cause it'd never have hit the news. It hit the news because it IS about religion, and the guy is obviously hoping that the publicity will force HD into settling before trial.

It also hit the news because people hate religion and therefore makes this an issue via that as well.

The majority of people in the United States are believers. So unless the small minority of people who vehemently oppose religion own Home Depot or the television station the point is moot.

If it's done on his time and he's not harassing anyone then it's not against any thing. If he was doing it on company time or was harassing people then they have reason to fire him. Also they probably were irritated at that and made it about the pin he's wore for a over a year.

trying to change people views and convert their beliefs is so utterly primitive it blows my mind that religions are still doing it

Political parties do it.

Debaters do it.

Everyone does it.

True, we all do, but regardless of the subject, one should be cautious about the when and where...there are places and times where and when neither religion nor politics are considered a proper subject for conversation because the potential for high emotions is so likely.

JJ
Agreed
But I doubt we will get a straight answer from either camp.
I will bet Home Depot will settle out of court to stimey any further negative publicity.

High emotions by sensitive people.

PC rules and regulations are the death of many reasonable things.

Founding Fathers were NOT atheist.

Some of the more important and influential were DEIST, but a large percentage were christian, and still a substantial majority supported the separation of church and state. During the Constitutional Convention, when it was suggested that a prayer be said at the beginning of each day's deliberations, all but three of the delegates voted "no".

In God We Trust implies all religion's, not just Christianity.
All religions have one or more "Gods".
If it said In Jesus We trust or In Rasta We Trust it would be different.

Come on, all businesses have rules and regulations they expect (force) employees to adhere to. If this button had a rock group on it or Bart Simpson, etc. no one would be discussing it. Someone complained and management had to respond, I'm sure. I'm sure Home Depot wasn't thinking 'oh no a God button!' or 'let's piss off some Christians because we don't need their business'. It's what happens when your employer decides you aren't following their rules. (And, no, that doesn't mean I condone it. It would have been easier just to go on overlooking the minor infraction.)

"In God We Trust implies all religion's, not just Christianity."

If you'd go back and look at the history of that phrase on US paper currency, you'd see that it was put there during the 50's "commie scare" period, where the Knights of Columbus convinced enough Congressmen to put it into law. After all, we had to "protect" ourselves from those godless communists!

Yeah, it matters, and the reason it is wrong is because of statements like you just made.

Just because you ACCEPT the currency does NOT mean you or anybody else supports that statement. It's there, it isn't a choice you have, the government doesn't give you a choice of currencies. It's dollars or go broke.

The First Amendment forbids the government (Federal, State and Local) from supporting ANY religion, or from oppressing them as well. It is supposed to be neutral, so this statement, as an official "motto", is illegal.

right on.

Not defending the phrase people.
I am an atheist.
Just stating a fact based on the subject matter of the sentence. Try and read my statement again without prejudice or an agenda.

@ rwahens

"Just because you ACCEPT the currency does NOT mean you or anybody else supports that statement."

Your goddamn right (like that) I accept the currency. If you hate yours so much I will give you my address. Send it all my way and I will be happy to dispose of it for you.

Nice try.

But that statement DOESN'T imply all religions, it was specifically inserted by Congress at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, to refer to this country being "under god".

Buddhists don't worship the christian god, nor do the Hindu. Shintoism is about as far from christianity as you can get.

It was not meant to include all religions, nor can it be construed as such.

Good point about Buddhist's. However since they do not really hate and have been THE ONLY religion never to declare war on anyone, I think they hardly care what is written on our dollar.
So where do the Jew's fit into this Christian conspiracy. Do you really think they were not a major factor in 1950's politics?

Or did they not care because they worship a "God"?
If so then you have proven MY point.

I think your agenda and passion might be blinding you and logic.

Logic doesn't have crap to do with it.

The Treasury's take on it:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Religioustolerance.org says:

"In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." The president signed the resolution into law on 1956-JUL-30. The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. "

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

And last but not least, Wikipedia:

"A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring In God We Trust the national motto of the United States.[2] The same Congress had required, in the previous year, that the words appear on all currency, as a Cold War measure: "In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper" to "remind all of us of this self-evident truth" that "as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail." [10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

NONE of these sources mention other religions. ALL of them allude to a christian majority belief in "God".

It is NOT inclusive of non-christian religions, and it was not in any way influenced by the Jews. I can't find the source anymore, but it was heavily influenced by the Knights of Columbus.

It is routinely considered to be a christian motto, and you are one of the first I've seen trying to make it seem inclusive. It is NOT, and even if it was, since it leaves out the Hindu, as you noted and the Shintoists, which you did not, it violates the First Amendment - it also excludes atheist and agnostic believers.

However you cut it, it is unConstitutional, end of story.

All you have shown here is Congress passed a measure to include a phrase about religion to battle communism.
The phrase does not say In Christianity we trust.
Do you really think the politicians knew what a Shintoists or even what the Hindu religion was in the 50's ?
I remain unmoved.
Your passion is impressive but i think you are reading too much into this.

just one man's opinion.
Which like you I am entitled to.
Unless you think other wise.
Funny since you seem to be a champion against those who try to oppress free thinking.

Go ahead... I will let you have the last word.

Ok, I will, thanks, since you seem to admit you have no proof to counter the sources I have given that prove you wrong.

"Do you really think the politicians knew what a Shintoists or even what the Hindu religion was in the 50's ?"

Do you really think this country has always been so ignorant? However, your statement proves my point. If they didn't know, then they OBVIOUSLY alluded to their own religion, huh? But yeah, they knew who the Shintoists were, we'd just finished fighting a major war with the Japanese, remember?

Go ahead, stay ignorant. I wouldn't want to advertise it though.

"Go ahead, stay ignorant. I wouldn't want to advertise it though."

Did I once attack you and your opinion, call you names or pass judgment...
piss off dude
you just rendered this whole debate useless.
good job

We weren't arguing about OPINIONS.

I gave you sources, at least one official source, that countered your opinion. Facts, NOT my opinion.

That means that the FACT is that the word "God" in that motto does NOT refer to any religion but christianity. Nobody in this very public debate has ever asserted otherwise, in fact, almost every christian authority arguing to keep it in refers to the christian god.

I have NEVER heard any authorities from any other religion, either jewish or muslim, argue to keep that motto on the money.

I am sorry that you took it personally, but when a person closes out a debate by refusing to see what is plainly shown to be the truth with "I remain unmoved.", I can only call 'em like see 'em.

Go ahead, find an authoritative source that counters what the US Treasury says about the origins of that motto, and I'll apologize. But you won't find one, because that motto is meant to refer to the christian god, period, regardless of your opinion.

Haha....yeah unamerican.

Really? So you wouldn't have a problem with him wearing a button that said 'God sucks' or 'There is no god, get over it'? I'm betting you wouldn't be so quick to be upset on the employee's behalf then. In fact, you'd probably side with management.

Management didn't really care until someone had to go and point out the transgression. They probably could care less what the button said, just that it violated a rule.

But it's not a religious button. Ooops.

IT doesnt matter--- it wasn't approved and he refused to take it off. refused being the key word. He refused to obey the authority that was enforcing a dress code. He forfeited his own job.

And they didn't say anything for a year. It matters in court. They set precedent and then denied him what they allowed him to believe was right. They are in the wrong.

discrimination is very american, historically.

He wore it for over a year.

What dress code allows a mistake for a whole year?

Again, Jammer...someone probably had a problem with the button and pointed it out to the 'powers that be'. Management most likely could care less what the button said, they just had to do something once the transgression was revealed. Again, I'm sure you wouldn't be so upset if the button said 'Van Halen Rules' or something along those lines.

I'm not upset. I just like seeing people who don't like religion squirm trying to justify this when you can't.

Especially when it has nothing to do with religion---and the only reason it does have anything to do with it was so they had a reason to use it against him. Home Depot has a weak case and most likely will lose.

Who's squirming? Break the rules, refuse to be reasonable, you get fired. Happens all the time. It's called being fired for cause.

He's suing because he can't get unemployment after being fired for cause!

Sorry, Jammer, but hp and rwa are right. He was even offered an alternative and refused it. HE chose to continue to break the rules AFTER it was pointed out to him.

not to mention he's at will. He more than likely got laid off for another reason and wants to blame it on religious persicution.

They didn't correct it when they were asked about it...he was therefore fired because of the pin. Legally they have no stance. That's why they are stretching everything to fit what they know they are in the wrong for. They allowed this behavior for an entire year. That's making it ok and then all the sudden it's wrong?

NO. Legally they'll lose. You can't speak about rules when they didn't follow them either.