Agreed. This has zero to do with religious discrimination. And BTW, I disagree with the "Indivisible" part.

He's gonna lose... beliefs aside, he knew the policy, and when reminded of it, chose to defy it.

It might not be so clear cut given he had been wearing it for over a year. The first question that comes to my mind was "Why wasn't the policy enforced over a year ago?"

Exactly! A)Policy says no buttons. B)He wore a button. Ergo, C) he violated policy. When he refused to remove the button, he lost his right to remain employed.

What's worse, he then spinelessly tried to drag patriotism into it. My job says : No sneakers. If if I paint sneakers to look like American flags, I'm still violating company policy and have to change. (To say nothing of the disrespect by tromping along wet muddy sidewalks in flag shoes on the way to work, but that's a bit OT) I suspect someone just wanted to cause trouble. If he's old enough to work, he's old enough to understand that employees are bound to company policies first. I think him trying to pay his way through college might be a waste of time. What company will want an employee who thinks he's above the rest of his coworkers?

Exactly, he was fired for violating a dress-code, not because they were violating his First Amendment. If it's about patriotism, why not wear the company-approved United We Stand button they offered?

And "One nation, *under God*" has been part of our historical fabric since the 50s, not since our founding fathers. The Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even written until 1893. "In God We Trust" starting appearing on money after the Civil War, and wasn't made the official motto until 1956. It's amazing what wars can do to inspire belief in God.

If the button said “One nation under Mohammad” he would still be working.

The policy did not say NO BUTTONS. The company offered him a different button. It was clearly the messege on his button that was a "violation".

rgarrett,

"In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States and the State of Florida." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust)And "under God" was officially added by Congress in 1954. My bad. Knights of Columbus started using it at the state level in the early 50s. Thanks for the smiley, though. It sort of makes you almost right if you smile when you say something.

Apparently you chose not to research your comment again. E Pluribus Unum was considered the motto de facto, but as it had not been established by 1956 in law, Congress made the official motto In God We Trust. It's on our national seal, but it's not our official motto.

notforsale

If the button said “One nation under Mohammad” he would still be working.

Do you really think so ? *Tching!... reality check.

I agree with notforsale, he's probably right. Or one nation, under Rosie O'Donnell.

When this is all said and done maybe it should read "One nation, under the offended, "oppressed", panzy traitors which completely divide/divided this country while stealing our libertys and justice once and for all." And when we get to the "oppressed" part, everyone should do "air quotes"

EFF you Checker! It's NOT about RELIGION!

It's about taking pride oin our Countrie's History!

You're not from here originally are you? STFU!

Shan-Man, you are a piece of work. You're right in that this isn't about religion, but it isn't about our country's history either. Regardless of what the pin said, this is about an employer enforcing their dress code. He violated it, they let it go for a year, and when they decided to enforce it, he refused to comply. Enough said.

Carl W, and everyone else, where does it say that he was given the oportunity to remove the button? he worked there for a year with the button on...it does not say he was given a warning by his boss or supervisor or anything, they only took offense when he brought his Bible in to read on his own time...what you do on your own time is none of the company's business as long as you are not bothering your fellow workers while you do it and you report back to work in whatever your time constraint is. Somehow they decided this was the straw that broke the camel's back...if they didn't want him working there for "pushing" his religious beliefs, they should have given him three chances to comply by removing the button, that, i'm sure none of the customers were offended by or else you would think it would be cited in the article , and fired him months ago if they really felt that strongly about it. I agree with the post-er up above somewhere...if he wasn't standing in aisles preaching to the customers, i see nothing wrong with what he was doing. If someone wore a cross under their uniform would they have fired them as well?

E pluribus unum = Out of many one

Nothing to do with God.

I only see two problems here.

One is the media attention to this situation. Is this story written to insight a hostile environment for those of us who post, by not giving us the full story? I think that there is more to this than is being shared.

Secondly, I think the attorney who has taken this case is just trying to cash in on the $250,000 worth of publicity that he gets for free. So tell me, when the courts find in favor of the employer, will they also fine the attorney about $250,000 for bringing such a law suit into the judicial system to begin with.

If the media would quit publishing and the attorneys would stay out of it, we the public wouldn't even know about it.

notforsale

You just show your ignorance when you make comments that does not pertain to the subject matter ....

where does it say that he was given the oportunity to remove the button?

In the article it said that he was offered a company approved "United We Stand" button. You should really read the story before you comment.

, i see nothing wrong with what he was doing.

You don't write his paychecks, so your opinion and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

And "One nation, *under God*" has been part of our historical fabric since the 50s, not since our founding fathers. The Pledge of Allegiance wasn't even written until 1893. "In God We Trust" starting appearing on money after the Civil War, and wasn't made the official motto until 1956. It's amazing what wars can do to inspire belief in God.

Sara

I would agree with you but it was George Washington who added "so help me GOD" to the Presidential Oath of office.

Catastic - Yes they did give him an opportunity to change the pin to one that said, "United We Stand" He refused. The article says clearly that he was given a choice, they did not outright fire him w/o giving him a chance to lose the pin. Now, don't get me wrong, I love our Pledge and God and my vote always goes in favor of keeping God in the picture. I shop at HD a lot and indeed, they all wear the same pins. And "no", I haven't seen any that mention Allah or political party references.

Karen, the title God is a generic God referring to pagan deities as well as the Abrahamic one.

Actually, as a Wiccan, I say my god and goddess. I only capitalize it at the beginning of a sentence. "God" is the Christian God, as it is commonly understood. Now when I talk about a specific god such Herne, that's capitalized since it's a formal name.

Or I may say something like "Praise be The God/dess" in that case I'm using it as a title.... mind you I have "The" in front symbolizing I'm speaking of a title but I don't say, "Praise be God/dess" without adding a formal name. Because "God" without the "The" or without a formal name is understood to be the Christian God and that's not us.

Hallelejah!

I'm sure those companies have similar policies as well. Losing your job because of a fairy tale isn't worth it.

Do you know how much money Home Depot has given to support the troops? Of course you don't, because no one actually searches for knowledge any more. They read a story and think they have all the details they need.

Not only will I never shop at Home Depot again, I will call them at 800-553-3199 and let them know that since they are opposed to the reference of God, they will not receive my money, as it also references God.

People need to let Home Depot know how they feel. This p.c. crap is getting old

Go ahead, they have the same dress codes. Most businesses do.

just I'm sure that your absences won't be noticed

just my thoughts,

Thanks for the info. I will call then ASAP and let them know my contracting business will not be buying ANYTHING from them anymore. I dont buy much from them and as a previous poster stated, I will not insult them by giving them money with the word "God" on it.

Find me a huge chain that allows employees to wear whatever pin they want.

Good luck!

Violate company policy AND be given an chance to redeem yourself AND reject that chance.

No sympathy for this wing nut.

I'm a Christian, I believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ, and I can follow my dress code at work... why can't this guy?

Candice...

Do you have a policy regarding the approved footwear for people on your hardhat construction sites? If an employee said he wanted to wear sandals with crosses or stars or zebras on them for patriotic/religious reasons, would you allow that? Company policies, whether safety-inspired or image-nuetrality-inspired, are company policies.

And if you then offered that employee a chance to put a similar symbol on approved shoes, and he insisted it had to be sandals, what would you do?

As a customer and an athiest, I could care less if my cashier had a button on them that said anything about god or satan or country or whatever. Seriously, I DON'T CARE. Just ring up my items and I'll be on my way.

If you try to push your beliefs on me, then thats a different story.

If the company has a dress code and the employee refuses to comply, then they get fired. Simple. My only question is why did the company let him wear it for over a year and then bitch about it? I don't think we are getting the full story here.

It's probably because he was a poor employee.

dark...

Since the national corporations and chains all do have employee manuals, which do include rules on dress and other behaviors, there are periodic employee performance evaluations. If he has, as he says, been employed for at least a year, he has most certainly had at least one, or two, and there is documentation of those.

That would not be sensationalistic enough for our ever-more audience-seeking media, though.

I know. But Floridia is probably a right to work state. He could've been fired for anything, not just the button.

and you wackadoddledo liberals only want taught revisionist history that serves your agenda

What revisionsist history would that be?

Pragmatic,

It's not a PC issue. It's a company policy. The company has policies which this individual would have signed to agree to when he was hired. He then chose to violate one. He had a choice. He's not a victim.

If he was wearing a swastika would that be ok as well?

He wore it for a year. Where was the enforcement for 12 months? When he started reading the Bible, and they decided to interpret his button as religious not patriotic, was when they had a problem.

While I can agree, pragmatically (heh), that he should have just taken the damn button off ..... their motivations and timing are suspect.

Do your own research, evilgenius, on the revisionist history. Textbooks are being sponsored by corporations, and history is being rewritten in them to serve a liberal, politically correct agenda. Google it. There's a pretty large movement among parents and professional educators to return to the "classic" textbooks and teaching methods.

Pragmatic...

Good luck with that ceiling fan. Lowe's has the same policy. So do many corporations which deal with the public, including chain groceries. In most, cases, it also applies to jewelry with written messages, if visible outside the uniform.

Rules are rules, and it has nothing to do with politics or religion. Most of us teach our children that in a land of rules and laws, one makes choices to obey them or at some point, incur consequences. You may speed for a year too, , but that doesn't mean you won't get a ticket when a cop suddenly notices you. Saying you have knowingly been breaking a rule for a year and nobody noticed, doesn't get you off, especially when you are offered a compromise that is approved, and you refuse.

He is a big boy. He should already understand this by now.

evilgenius asks -

Quote: "What revisionist history would that be?"

Read & learn - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

excerpt: "...

earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

Dear Pragmatic to a Fault: Textbooks are NOT being watered down with liberal beliefs. In fact, the State of Texas is the biggest purchaser of textbooks in the country, and publishers are very careful not to tread too hard on conservative toes in that state. If anything, they lean towards conservative views for this very reason. Speaking of textbooks: next time do your homework.

Homie D Clown

Your post isn't an example of revisionist history, but rather interpretation of intention. The founding fathers, Jefferson included, were Deists. Jefferson himself rewrote the bible excluding all the miracles including the creation and the resurrection. They were not Christians nor did they want this nation to be 'a Christian' nation. In fact today's conservatives would have lumped them all under a title of 'educated liberal elite'...

Well, CeCe, I guess Texas is the whole country then?

Glad ya'll are good to go down there, we have a bit of a problem in here in NY.

PINCH, I recognize the wise thing to do would be to just take off the damn button. But please acknowledge, the time span between him wearing the button, THEN starting his lunch time bible reading and the coinciding decision to demand he remove the button. If, on day 1 of him wearing the button they had asked him to remove it? No problem. They didn't. For 12 months, it was fine. Then it wasn't? Suspect.

And when Lowe's fires someone under a questionable enforcement of that policy, they'll hear from me too.

Either you enforce a policy when it's broken, or you don't. You don't wait for a second layer of Bible reading to change the interpretation of the button, THEN demand the button come off. Can you guys get the distinction?

Lets not forget that the Treaty With Tripoli spells out, in no uncertain terms, that the US "was not, in any sense, founded a Christian nation".

for all you conservatives who think that america is a "christian nation", perhaps you need a history lesson.

the treaty of tripoli CLEARLY states america is NOT a christian nation. and as of this date, the treaty is still in effect and has NOT been voided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

heres article 11 of the treaty: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

another interesting fact is that this treaty is only 1 of 3 ever passed with uniminous congressional support. and it was passed less than 30 years after our nation was founded, so it clearly states the intentions of the founding fathers.

Pragmatic...

From this as usual sensationalized media story, we have only his statement that he only just started bringing his Bible to work. We have only his statement that he has been wearing the pin for a year. We have no indication of how many warnings he had been given, both verbally and in writing, as required and followed by any large corporation, in order to document all terminations for cause. There is an entire file on this that goes back for some time.

He is just not old enough or experienced enough to realize that what sounds great to the press looking for a victim is hardly the way things are handled in the Human Resources department of a large corporation.

Pragmatic, might I remind you that according to the Treaty of Tripoli circa 1791 (I believe the year is correct) the US was never a Christian nation and never will be. Under any circumstances.

Also, I believe classes in History, World, US and otherwise, touches on thee words In God We Trust and One Nation Under God being established in the 1950's.

It would be wise for you to take a remedial/refersher course. Seeing as how you probably didn't pay attention during it.

The only revisionist I see here would be you and so many people out there like you.

There is a widespread myth that the Founding Fathers intended our country to be based on a Christian foundation and principles. You'll see it over and over and over again in post after post after post. The truth of the matter is that most people don't have any real idea of what foundation our Constitution is based on and they never will because they don't intend to do any research on it. So they just say it was based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, even though that is incorrect.

This is one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of our country, the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the many authors of the Constitution:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Others have already stated better than I could, the history showing that America is purposely not a Christian nation, or possessing of any national religion. Under Bush, it would have been easy to think that had changed, bit it hasn't.

Just to add a bit of a legal perspective, this was the underlying intent of the "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution:

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

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose."

The framers went out of their way to make sure that every American was allowed to practice his own belief (or lack thereof), without government interference.

I forgot Thomas Jefferson was the only founding father and that only his opinions and writings matter and render all others null and void. Thanks for reminding me.

I guess Lincoln wasn't a Christian when he wrote this,

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

Executive Mansion,
Washington, September 4, 1864.

Eliza P. Gurney.
My esteemed friend.

I have not forgotten--probably never shall forget--the very impressive occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath forenoon two years ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, ever been forgotten. In all, it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance on God. I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay.

Your people--the Friends--have had, and are having, a very great trial. On principle, and faith, opposed to both war and oppression, they can only practically oppose oppression by war. In this hard dilemma, some have chosen one horn, and some the other. For those appealing to me on conscientious grounds, I have done, and shall do, the best I could and can, in my own conscience, under my oath to the law. That you believe this I doubt not; and believing it, I shall still receive, for our country and myself, your earnest prayers to our Father in heaven.

Your sincere friend
A. Lincoln.

Lincoln was not one of the Founding Fathers. He was not there to help decide and establish the framework for our government. And do not put words into my mouth. I did not say Jefferson was the only one involved, but he was one of the main framers and authors of some of the most important documents establishing the basic principles of the government of our country.

It is also interesting to note that the reasons that were used to support slavery in this country for so long (the will of God) are the same ones Lincoln used to dismantle it.

This is exactly what I meant when I said people don't do research. Do some more and you will find the Founding Fathers were not Christians, per se, but deists. That has real meaning, if you care to look it up.

Holy crap.

I just went back and read my posts again....

Where did I ever say that this country was founded as a Christian nation? Exactly - NOWHERE. That had nothing to do with my point at all regarding revisionist history textbooks. The most recent examples I've been researching have nothing to do with the founding, but mid-20th century history. But okay, freak out at will, it's your finger power.

My point was, and remains as follows:

It has gotten so ridiculous in this country because of intolerant lefts demands that THEY be tolerated. Meanwhile, many of them are completely unwilling to tolerate anyone else. As a result, companies have to have policies like this. Christians are castigated, but anyone else? They can walk around with their faith identifiers all over the place and the Christians are supposed to be just fine with that. They can stop dead in Central Park (seen it happen) and start praying, but GOD FORBID a Christian wish a non-Christian Merry Christmas. Somehow the wackos have twisted a geniunely pleasant sentiment into an insult.

If you can't see the double standard there, then forget it. You are part of the problem, not the solution, which is accepting that YOU need to be as tolerant of other people as you want them to be of YOU.

MERRY CHRISTMAS.

It has nothing to do with tolerance.

And its October. Happy Halloween.

Happy Samhain, Pragmatic.

Yeah, but you know, you have to read the whole thing and there's so many words. And, get this, you have to remember what you read! So unfair! /end sarcasm

Like in my post 2.3, maybe this guy shouldn't be trying to get through college.

Well, I think he deserves a college education. Maybe he'll even have to take a U.S. history course.

If he loves his country so much, why not join the National Guard like his brother? We happily pay for college. And you can serve your country at the same time! Way to watch your brother go to war while you bravely love your country at home, dude.

The scary part of this story is. the Civil Rights Lawyer says you have a hard case fighting religious battles in court, Private owned companies can set their own standards. Now there is a guy who wasted money on college. So if I own a business I can refuse to hire someone for their Religious belief ? What a load of crap, I wouldn't try that if I was you.

I will never spend another dime at Home Depot !!!!!!! My money says In God We Trust. I would hate to offend them.

I own a business I can refuse to hire someone for their Religious belief ? What a load of crap, I wouldn't try that if I was you.

that's not what they're saying AT ALL.

You cannot hire/fire someone based on their religious beliefs. You can however make sure that they follow the company dress code.

I will never spend another dime at Home Depot !!!!!!! My money says In God We Trust. I would hate to offend them.

a little over dramatic aren't we?

Use a credit card at HD. They don't say anything about God, so you won't have any conflicts of interest.

Not really Drowning. If they really don't want references to god in the store... Why not oblige them.?

THANKS for reminding me that i have a home depot credit card.......it'll be CANCELLED today...

I forgot, I have one also. I'll cut it up and send it to them.

There will be a few less angry righties in Home Depot now ... maybe I'll switch from Lowes, so I can shop amongst my own PC elitist liberals. Gotta love these boycott statements - as many on one side as on the other - it's a wash. Have a ball cutting up your cards.

Drag politics into this when it has nothing to do with them. If supporting my country make me an "angry righty", then so be it. I kinda thought of myself as a liberal, but if it means being associated with the likes of you... maybe I don't want to be one.

Have fun damaging your credit canceling your cards. How can so many of you have spelling mistakes in your posts? There's a spell checker as you type!

Like damaging my credit is on top of my worry list. The way the economy is headed to hell, credit should be the last worry to anyone. Maybe it's personal style to mispell.?

Really... wingnuts are so utterly stupid they'll glady cut of their noses to spite their faces. Dipsticks.. all of them.

Do you really think HD will miss their business? I'm sure they'll probably say GOOD RIDDANCE to all of you.

I personally take a sharpie and strike through any religious BS on my money as references to fictional characters and myths in government or public places and institutions deeply OFFENDS me.

You all can go right ahead and stop shopping there. That would actually be a good thing for a lot of other reasons other than some guy's stupid button. However, I doubt it will do one bit of good. Wal-Mart is one of the worst, most employee-unfriendly stores in the country, but you all just keep flocking there for cheap underwear. Home Depot is not much different. Just wait until you need a new ceiling fan or a new cordless drill. Unless you want to pay double at Sears or something, you'll be back at Home Depot.

The ACLJ will pay for this lawsuit.

The ACLJ will pay for this lawsuit.

haha, that's funny cause it's true.

For all the ACLU bashing the right does, i'm sure we won't see a Bill O'Reilly clip singing the praises of the ACLU for taking up this "good christian's" case...

Sooo.... wearing a button of JUST an American flag was too much for him. Afterall, he says he was wearing for his love of country. We all know that wasn't the case. This man CHOSE to lose his job over a fairy tale. Religion claims another one.

Then you obviously have absolutely no knowledge of what O'Reilly's show is actually about, and are just spewing more liberal talking point garbage ala Olbermann.

I catch maybe 1 out of 10 O'Reilly's, and I've heard him compliment the ACLU on at least two occasions that I remember. I've also heard him bash the ACLU. O'Reilly is pretty intolerant of BS, no matter which direction its coming from.

But you wouldn't know that, would you, because you've never actually watched the program, and it must be true cuz Keith said so.

Dismissed.

I guess someone else who really wants a job will be able to get one now.

O'Reilly is tolerant of BS???? The name O'Reilly and the word "tolerant" in the same sentence??? What fairy tale did I wake up in???

The name O'Reilly and the word "tolerant" in the same sentence???

Another person who has an opinion of a TV show they don't actually watch.

i'm sure we won't see a Bill O'Reilly clip singing the praises of the ACLU for taking up this "good christian's" case...

Drowning Grover, Of course you won't see that on the Factor because the ACLU won't take up his case. Afterall he's not advocating homosexuallity, child pornography or abortion. You know, all of the Democratic party "special" interests.

See, that's where you're wrong. I have watched his show and its pure drivel. Nothing but garbage comes out of his mouth, AND he does it on purpose.

Just like I think that many of the competing shows on MSNBC are crap. If you like watching Rachael Madcow Chris Matthews or Kieth Looserman then I guess you would think the factor is full of "pure drivel."

I don't seem to remember Mr. Oberman or Chris Matthews having guests from both sides of the arguement on their shows, just sycophants.

You see, to watch the Factor you need to have a functioning brain, and obviously, you don't have one. Maybe that is why you don't like it.

You just don't like the Factor because BOTH sides of an argument are displayed side by side for all to see, and that is when your side's ideology is shown to be nonsense.

Nothing but garbage comes out of his mouth

It's obvious, that you are lying about having watched the Factor, as Bill is not a Guttersnipe. (I'm sure you'll have to look that one up). Why not have an opinion of your own instead of borrowing one from your MSNBC cronies.

Nope, not a liar. I have on occasion watched Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and I admit that their views are probably more in line with mine, but I really don't like what's happened to network news since 9/11. Its not really "news" anymore. Everything has a spin or a slant on it. However, Fox's slant is so slanty that its not even upright.

Don't need to look up guttersnipe, either. Don't like The Factor because Bill O'Reilly is just a big jerk. That proves I have a brain.(Don't you remember him from that tabloid show Inside Edition or some such garbage? How can you have any credibility as a "journalist" with that on your resume?)

Keep calling names, I'm sure that makes you feel much better about yourself.

lrn2rd.

I said "intolerant". Bill O'Reilly is intolerant of BS from both sides.

So, Janet, since you don't like O'Reilly I suppose you want him taken off the air.

No, I don't want him taken off the air. I do not agree with his views and his attitude and his behavior. So I don't watch him. Its that simple. At some point his rhetoric will get old, people will stop watching and Fox will replace him with some other shock journalist.

Is that tolerant enough for you?

And my apologies for misreading your comment. I answered in good faith only.

re: Oberman, Madcow & Matthews:

I admit that their views are probably more in line with mine

...."Therefore, anybody with contrary viewpoints should be taken off the air".......

Did you bother to watch last night? Bill O. actually stood up for the President on two seperate occasions. But, of course, you didn't watch. But you'll have an opinion.

So I don't watch him. Its that simple

So, why do you feel so strongly about a show that you admit you don't watch? Oh yes, your a liberal, and getting both sides of the story is contrary to your thought process.

If he is such a tabloid journalist, why did Barack have an interview on the Factor? Why did Hillary Clinton say that she had a "Fair interview" with Mr. Bill?

I will be waiting for your response that you need to look up on the Huffington Post or Media Matters...........

Would someone please explain to me how this discussion of professional entertainers, working for a sensationalistic media only concerned with ratings and sponsors, and who are not in any way objective journalists, have anything to do with the topic at hand?

I really don't like what's happened to network news since 9/11. Its not really "news" anymore. Everything has a spin or a slant on it.

True, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC sure are slanted. From Chris Matthews' "Tingly Leg" to Dan Rather's "Made up doccuments" right before the election. You know, the ones that precipitated his retirement? How about Campell Brown asking the White House adviser Valerie Jarrett about MSNBC's bias in favor of the Dems was hesitant to admit it, but quick to critcize Fox for the same thing. Hypocryte!!

CNN host Campbell Brown criticized the White House tonight for their accusations of bias at Fox News. During her "No Bias, No Bull" segment, Brown aired a clip of an interview with senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett in which Jarrett was quick to label Fox News as biased but refused to do the same for MSNBC.

Huffington Post 10/28/09

See? Liberals do not look at issues from both sides.

"True, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC and FOX sure are slanted."

There, fixed it. It seems some conservatives do not look at issues from both sides.

Pinch, Comment 6.2 From Drowning Grover started it.

i'm sure we won't see a Bill O'Reilly clip singing the praises of the ACLU for taking up this "good christian's" case...

Comment 6.6 Jane continued it.

The name O'Reilly and the word "tolerant" in the same sentence???

Bill O'Reilly is just a big jerk

Awww, Did I hurt you feelings Redphish?

Why don't you just go down to the basement and take another bong-hit while your momma goes to work. Must be tough being a college dropout without a job.

LOL, I guess your childish insults mean you have no rational explanation for blatant hypocrisy.

Toxic...

I was not asking who started it. I was just curious about why so many people went off the cliff discussing the irrelevant, sometimes in less-than-adult fashion, subject which was not germane to this topic - like lemmings sort of.

I am well aware that posters often make off-topic comments, but that does not mean anyone else has to follow and ramp it up.

I am also amused that this supposedly "liberal" story, from a perspective usually criticized mightily, is suddenly seen as the absolute gospel by so many who are usually so quick to find fault with any story they read on this site.

I was not asking who started it. I was just curious about why so many people went off the cliff discussing the irrelevant, sometimes in less-than-adult fashion, subject which was not germane to this topic - like lemmings sort of.

Sorry Pinch, I'm just in a bit of a bad mood and sometimes I find that a little troll smacking makes a great stress reliever.

Redphish, Did you read my posting on Campbell Brown, or just ignore it? While it may be true that Fox leans conservative, and some of their commentators are definitely conservative, the same could be said regarding the other Several networks that have a liberal bias. My comment was not about The Fox news network, but of the Factor. Often, guests of contrary opinion are able to state their point of view and the audience can decide which viewpoint they agree with. Do you see that on the talk shows on MSNBC? NBC? CBS? ABC? No, you don't see it. Hell, Valerie Jarrett can see conservative bias on Fox, but not Liberal Bias on MSNBC. (that is Hypocracy) CNN is the only other news network that could be considered somewhat "fair minded" - in some of their shows.

Pinch, I see this "Pin story" as a cultural issue. Yes the guy was wrong for not following protocol, but why was nothing done about it for the 12 months leading up to his firing? Was there anybody who took this guy aside and said, "you need to take the pin off, or else.."

Bill O. does give a fair presentation of the facts, as I stated earlier, last night he defended Mr. Obama when a guest said something inflamatory, and for somebody to post on this site that he is something he is not - "Garbage Mouthed Driveler" I am going to speak up.

Phish, re: stress reliever :why don't you just masturbate instead?

Toxic why do you want to make an argument where there isn't one? I never made the conclusion that since I disagree with O'Reilly that he should be taken off the air. In fact (you having trouble with facts?) I even said I didn't want him taken off the air. People who agree with him are entitled to watch him if they want to.

Again, I have, in the past, watched Bill O'Reilly. I have also watched the Maddow show, and Keith Olberman. I also occasionally watch other news commentary shows, to get an idea of what the general consensus is out there on different topics. However, I don't usually watch for long, because, as I said before, too many of them are way too "spun" for me. I recognize the obvious bias that is there, with liberals and conservatives alike. (And even the "centrists", if they really exist.) You say O'Reilly gives a "fair presentation of the facts" but I do not agree and there are many many others who would agree with me. His presentation of the fact absolutely skews the topic to highlight his personal bias on the topic.

My comment about O'Reilly and tolerance was my mistake. I misread the comment, I corrected myself. It takes a responsible and honorable person who has real integrity to do that. You might want to try it sometime. But if you want to continue to be indignant, insulting and ungracious, go right ahead. Its your right.

Like this little response:

"Phish, re: stress reliever :why don't you just masturbate instead?"

Yeah, that's integrity, right?

"Phish, re: stress reliever :why don't you just masturbate instead?"

Yeah, that's integrity, right?

At least he's honest enough to not try to deny that he's trolling.

And Pinch, how did we get off on this subject? It's just how the conversation turned, that's all. That's what happens when people argue and debate. There's nothing wrong with it. It's all kind of tied together.

As for the fact that this guy wore the pin for a whole year and they didn't ask him to take it off, I think its irrelevant. For some reason it went under their radar for a long time, they probably didn't notice or maybe someone else brought it to their attention. So you break policy for a whole year and don't get caught, then, when they do notice you think you can just say, oh well you never said anything before so it must be ok. That's not how policies work. A person could go to work drunk a dozen times and never get caught, then the one time they do get caught they can't just use the excuse that it must be ok since they never got caught before.

Yeah, that's integrity, right?

That was my reply to his remark:

I'm just in a bit of a bad mood and sometimes I find that a little troll smacking makes a great stress reliever.

It was a joke, and since I, (the Troll) was the object of his "Bad Mood" I just made a suggestion. It has nothing to do with my integrity. Anybody who spells Fish with a "ph", is indicating that they are a fan of the band phish, who are known to be pot legalization advocates.

You initially made the comments about O'Reilly being "intolerant", "Shock Journalist" , "Jerk" were they misreads too?

I corrected myself. It takes a responsible and honorable person who has real integrity to do that. You might want to try it sometime.

So, you make "incorrect" statements, then you correct them and in the same paragraph you then criticize me for not having the same honor and integrity you have?

Your a legend in your own mind.

Redphish, You are the one who brought up the word "Troll." I wasn't in a "Bad Mood" coming here to pick a fight, you were. I simply made a suggestion to help you with your stress.

Jane...

I think you meant to direct your response to me to another poster. I contacted Home Depot and received an immediate copy of their employee disciplinary policy.

As a result, and also from being a major employer in many businesses, I am well acquainted with this standard procedure, which can easily take quite a while. It involves first a verbal warning and a period of time to comply. Then there is a second verbal warning and more time. This is followed by a written warning explaining that there will be a reprimand for non-compliance. Then there is the reprimand, which the employee usually is encouraged to reply to, as this kid apparently did, providing a justification. Then there is an optional mediation, where there is an attempt to come up with a mutually agreeable solution, which happened, but this employee rejected it. Then all documents can be consolidated, reviewed by HR (which in Home Depot's situation is not represented in the individual stores, but is handled on a district level, which slows everything down even more), and there is the resulting termination for CAUSE.

If, as he says, he is a college student, he is also probably a part-time employee, He may even have irregular hours. The managers who communicate these things to HR generally work a standard work week. Therefore, it will take longer both for these things to come to their actual attention, and also for them to be able to follow up as they must, in order to actually document everything first hand.

You can rarely fire someone in a single day, week, or even month, if you follow this standard procedure, even with a regular fulltime employee. Documents, signatures, etc. passing back and forth between store managers, employee, and HR require time.

I have been consistent in saying that the "victim" is the only one saying he has had the pin on for a year. What if he is exaggerating? It doesn't even say how long he has actually been working there, or anything about his performance reviews. There is an entire file of documentation in the store's HR department. This will be factual, not just a disgruntled ex-employee's cries to the sensationalizing press.

He signed a contract for employment and knew the rules. He pushed it and pushed it, and was given every chance to comply. He refused. If it was that important, he could have worn it under his apron, out of sight. But he chose to make an issue out of it. He was fired for non-compliance with an established store policy and insubordination.

I am not even a little bit surprised it took several months, since the store obviously went out of their way to keep him, and he still would not cooperate. Instead, he ran to the press, yelling "lawsuit". He didn't even try to get himself out so he could collect unemployment. His self-centered feeling of being above the rest and his immaturity cost him his job, not religion, patriotism, or Mickey Mouse.

Oh, silly ToxicChemist, still trying to make arguments where they don't exist. And not even good ones.

arguments where they don't exist

You're right, there is no arguement. You have every right to not watch the Factor, watch the other shows, I really don't care. You can have an opinion about O'Reilly or (about me), even if they are inaccurate. Afterall, there are plenty of people out there who have opinions, some correct, others not so, and it is a free country, so have fun.

My opinion was contrary to yours in regards to Bill O. being a "garbage mouthed, shock journalist Jerk." I disagree with your opinion. That is my opinion. Your opinion of me lacking honesty and integrety, in my opinion, is inaccurate. Anybody who knows me personally, would disagree with you.

Yes! Job opening for a person who wants to work!People need to know his God is NOT everyones god.He can wear his button everywhere else but it does NOT belong at work.

Check it out I wrote a screenplay about this. It's a rough draft and I don't t know if I like the characters yet, but here it goes.

JOHN - lives at home, or lives alone, goes to school or graduated, still has a middle class family nearby who can support him. Goes to church, loves his country.

JIM - struggling lower class, sole provider for a family of 5, has no family nearby to support him. Also goes to church, loves his country.

BOSS: (to both of them) "Take off those buttons!"

JOHN: "No, I'm devoted to my country and God."

JIM: "What button?"

THE END

"applause"

A true life drama.

msb2u, people in this country, either native or immigrant, need to know what this country was founded on(or added to along the way, as other posters have stated). If this offends anyone, they have the right to leave. It didn't say "one nation under a christian god" anyway, simply "god". I'm pretty sure thats what was meant when it was added though. Maybe he needs to write in "non-denominational" in front of "god". This country is being torn apart over the very values it was founded, and raised, on through the years.

JEREMY...

As with so many of these types of stories from our ever-sensationalizing media,, you know we don't get the whole story.

But what we do know for a fact is this:

1. Employer has long-standing policy for all employees saying only company-approved pins are allowed on uniforms.

2. Employee knowingly broke this rule for a year before finally being noticed.

3. Employee is offered an approved pin meeting his supposedly expressed needs.

4. Employee then refuses, saying it is not enough.

5. Employer then enforces employment policy and terminates employee.

The pin could have been a campaign button, a Mickey Mouse pin, or an advertisement for a competitor. It doesn't matter. A rule is a rule. Don't you teach your children to follow the rules as laid out for them ahead of time in school, or are they some of those who think they can make their own and Mommy and Daddy will get them a lawyer?

Jeremy: your solution doesn't work for the 17% of agnostics and atheists in this beautiful country of ours. Back to the drawing board for another try, please.

This is pointless. My kids will follow rules, mine first(which I garauntee will be more strict than any school system or law enforcement agency), the worlds second. I agree the man should have just left the pin at home for sake of conflict and dropped it. The point I'm trying to make, and I'm sure he is too, is to stand up for your country. The line is in the pledge of allegiance. Anyone who is'nt willing to say the pledge, and say it proudly, should quietly leave. After all, we are in the U.S.. And again, it doesn't specify christian, muslim, buddist, satanic... It just says "god".

CeCe in CT, ??? , please.

So, CeCe, the 83% of the people who AREN'T agnostic or athiest once again have to grab their ankles and take it, so no one has to listen to the wankering of 17%.

That is, fundamentally, what is wrong with this country.

I don't give two sh!ts about what you people want anymore.

Why do WE have to tolerate YOU, but YOU don't have to tolerate US?

@ PragmaticToAFault,

So you're assuming the other 83% of the people in this country share YOUR beliefs? That's hilarious.

Pragmaticlyfaulty - Because this country is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC... that's why.

Tyranny of the Majority DOES NOT FLY here. Got it ? And you people are a PRIME reason why the founding fathers made sure this was NOT a "democracy".

No, I'm assuming that if I have to tolerate YOU, YOU should have to tolerate me.

That's all. No tyranny. Just mutual respect.

You're the tyrants. Unable to tolerate anything at all, that you disagree with.

And you seem to find the concept of tolerance impossible unless your demanding someone direct towards you, and get offended by a guy wearing a pin. Yet I'm the one with the problem? Okie dokie.

Pragmatic...

You are really missing the point. This has nothing to do with tolerance, religion, or patriotism. It has a great deal to do with a sensationalizing media story, which, ordinarily, would be getting a lot of flack for only emphasizing one side, leaving out facts, being too liberal/conservative, etc. But suddenly this one is assumed to be the whole story, totally true, and completely accurate and unbiased.

We have the ex-employee's word that he has been wearing the pin for a year. Nothing has been said abut the a typical HR policy (which Home Depot follows), where an employee is given a verbal warning, a period of time to comply, sometimes a stronger verbal warning, more time, then a written warning, more time, then a final warning with a chance to respond, then an attempt to mediate when there is a response, more time, then a termination when mediation fails. In a large corporation, especially with a part-time employee (he did say he was going to college), this can take months. This did not all just happen in one day. Firings for cause are ALWAYS heavily documented over time.

The point remains, he signed an employment contract. He broke it repeatedly and knowingly. He was apprised of that fact. He continued to defy his employment conditions. He was again told this was not allowed and was offered a company-approved alternative. He refused. He continued to ignore his contractual obligation. He was terminated.

This could have been a Mickey Mouse pin, an "I love Mom", pin or a picture of the Three Stooges. It doesn't matter. The rule applies to all employees and he agreed to it in writing when he took the job.

He is a big boy. He needs to learn the meaning of a contractual obligation, and tolerance and respect for the rules set by an employer he voluntarily agreed to work for.

By the way, if he was not trying to make a public statement and see how far he could go to get away with things other employees were not allowed to do either, and was just revering things important to him, he could easily have worn the pin UNDER his apron.

He wasn't wearing religious attire. He was wearing a button not approved by the company, which is strictly against company policy. Nowhere in my church rules or the Bible require or suggest that I wear a button with a quote from a national pledge. It wasn't even a Bible verse... not that that would have made a difference, since he violated the company dress code.

Law 33 might want to consider a name change...

Read the article. Read what LAWYERS said about the difference between what he was wearing & religious garb.

Law 33:

If an employee knowingly violates company policy in any regard and that includes dress, the company has the right to fire them if the employee chooses not to comply with company policy. People are complicating this issue with discussions about religion and politics. This has nothing to do with either. The company makes the policies for it's own organization and has the right to enforce that policy at it's own discretion. BTW, there is no law that dictates that companies must enforce their own rules fairly or across the board. This guy is just stupid. They gave him an opportunity to comply with policy so he could save his job and he chose not to comply. So they fired him. Case closed

So then why did they offer the "United We Stand" button in the originals place? No Button Period right?

Another Joe the Plumber in the making!

Kat,

Please don't bring that idiot back to life....

Just like the gov't, this corp. wants to take away another freedom/liberty. So if he had been wearing a cross, star of David, suicide belt, the corp. would be justified in making him remove it and deny him his right to freedom of expression?

Except, this isn't a government institution, it's a privately owned business. Wow, how hard is it to comprehend that? Business owners CAN enforce dress codes and policies. Period. (including the disallowing of ANY religious references)

True that. Freedoms have limits. Some people may not like this reality, but the company has the freedom to enforce it's own policies.

sunshine...

And this young man knew the policy when he took the job. If he knew he couldn't abide with the same rules applied to all employees, he shouldn't have taken the job.

Has anyone else noticed that religiowingtards have a SERIOUS problem with COMPREHENSION ? I'll bet collectively their IQ's don't break the double digit range.

It's not comprehension exactly. It's just that most people only learn half of what they should when they're going to school and then they pretty much forget it when they get out. Everyone can remember the 1st Amendment and proclaim "Freedom of Speech!" but its much more difficult to actually think about what it really means and how the Constitution applies it in our everyday lives. You can be a very intelligent person, as I'm sure some posters like Kenneth David are, but if you're ignorant of the facts and how they are applied, it doesn't matter how smart you are.

So many people truly believe that the "under God" part was included in the pledge as a way to show unity and assimilation in our country, when in fact just the opposite is true; it was added to purposely set us apart and distinguish us from other countries and governments that didn't encourage religious affiliation or practices at all (certainly the flip side of the coin).

Your credit card doesn't site god, so you can still use it at HD.

and if HD has such bad employees (no service, cant answer simple questions), then im sure this guy who got fired was one of them!

lol great way of supporting our contention that this douce deserved to be fired.

"HD is a hard place to shop anyway, no service, people who don't know what they are doing or how to answer simple questions."

Yes, that is the case with most big box stores. So here's a suggestion, shop at a local hardware/home supply store that is locally owned and operated. You will pay more, but you will generally get much better customer service, better brands, better quality and you will be supporting the local economy, not some big corporation who doesn't really care if you shop there or not.

HD is a hard place to shop anyway, no service, people who don't know what they are doing or how to answer simple questions.

As a former HD employee i resent that remark, all of the people I worked with were extremely knowledgeable in their departments. It will probably be a relief not having customers like you in the store anyway. Rude and ignorant customers like yourself dont deserve good service at all. Its funny, when Robert Nardelli drove that company into the ground a few years ago, were you complaining then? Yet you stick up for this cheeseball who broke the dress code because you pretend to be "sensitive" about religion? hysterical.

Portulaca, no offense to you, you may have much knowledge on the department you work in. But that's not usually the case with big box stores. Stores like that don't generally attract the type of employee who's really informed about the products they're selling mostly because of low wages and lack of benefits.

Portulaca, no offense to you, you may have much knowledge on the department you work in. But that's not usually the case with big box stores. Stores like that don't generally attract the type of employee who's really informed about the products they're selling mostly because of low wages and lack of benefits.

Actually jane, the pay and benefits were great at home depot. much better than a small privately owned business which usually does not offer their employees health insurance or decent wages, i have worked for both. so try and get your facts straight next time. i think you are thinking of wal mart perhaps and i havent shopped there for twenty years, way way too sleazy. When you become a home depot expert then you can state what wages,employees and benefits they offer. oh, and they have a huge military employment, are you saying that they are dumb too? thats not very patriotic.

Well, considering all the folks supporting his wearing of his God button, I'm sure they would support his Satan button too.

Am I right????

Exactly. He had been wearing the pin for over a year, supposedly against company policy, and no disciplinary action was taken. But then they see him on his break in a nonpublic area reading his bible and they fire him, saying it was because of the button which he had been wearing for over a year. Seems a bit suspicious.

Maybe he'd been given several warnings and this was the last straw.

HD gave him time to comply and gave him an option to wear an approved pin. He made the choice to say 'no'.

How is that HD's fault?

A co-worker probably saw him reading his bible while on break and complained. Thus leading the boss, who more than likely noticed but didn't say anything about the pin, to have to ask him to remove it.

I have a question for everybody or anybody! Why are non-Christians SO afraid of Jesus or even the word Jesus (Christians for that matter)? He never hurt anybody. He only tried to help the people of his time. If you don`t believe in him or God. Fine,but don`t tell those that believe in them they can`t!

ok minnie....im game

at the same time, you christians shouldnt be trying to tell gay ppl not to marry or try to outlaw abortions.

and i supposed you are also against ALL wars and capital punishment.....after all, jesus wouldnt hurt anyone!

Bloggerintexas, chri ins AZ, Just because he got away with not being in compliance with the dress code doesn't mean the dress code is null and void. If you get away with doing something illegal for a year and no one does anything, even if the cops SEE you doing it and do nothing to stop you...that doesn't mean the law that you broke is null and void and you get to sue! Matter of fact the manager should have been fired to for NOT enforcing the code. But again this is a private company and how they decide to discipline the employee and the manager is up to them. The bottom line is he WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY violated not only the dress code, he disobeyed a direct order from his supervisor! You don't keep your job doing things like that. Regardless of what the situation was! Period!!!

He may not have done it knowingly. Sure he signed all the paperwork, but did he read it? Did anyone explain it to him? It's all beside the point. He should have just taken the pin off.

Minnie...that's not it. It's that INTELLIGENT people are scared of IGNORANT people who believe in superstition, myths and fairytales. It implies #1...they have no common sense, #2...they can't be trusted or relied upon , #3...they can't be taken seriously, #4...there's a strong possibility of mental illness and #5...they lack any shred of credibility. They are DANGEROUS and a REAL THREAT to everyone in the REAL WORLD of common sense, logic and critical thought.

"Why are non-Christians SO afraid of Jesus or even the word Jesus"

I think people are as afraid of Jesus as they are of Sarah Palin. Which is to say, not one tiny little bit.

Both are equally irrelevant to my life.

Because Obama works for the federal government and the kid works for a private company with a dress code.

Hatred of God is right. HBO aired an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm the other night wherein Larry David urinated on a picture of Jesus and then mocked the Christian woman who owned the picture for thinking that it was a miracle to see Jesus weeping in the picture. The only Christian portrayed in the show was a woman who was overweight and unnattractive. She was then mocked after Larry David PEED on Jesus. Nice. Boycott HBO while you're boycotting Home Depot. Christians are the only ones with no rights in this country. Nobody is forced to "tolerate" us.

Churches don't pay taxes, they don't get a voice.

Christians are the only ones with no rights in this country.

Linny,

How are Christians' rights being violated? Larry David has the right, under the First Amendment, to do whatever he wants with his show.

If you're offended by something, you have the right not to watch it.

What would you want? To force your own standards of what you find offensive onto other people who don't share your fairy-tale beliefs? Now that would be a violation of someone's rights.

Also, what do you have against overweight people? Are you saying that they're unattractive?

...

"Churches don't pay taxes, they don't get a voice."

But church members do. Try again, you bigot.

"Churches don't pay taxes...", That needs to end asap. For all religious institutions, leaving only the sincere to carry on.

Good call addiem, then the church will get a say in government since you want them to pay taxes! I second that!

Cindy,

If you have had enough of this country go to one that really likes God and religion - like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Who says we hate god ? How many gods do you believe in ? Just one ? Well we believe in just one LESS than you do.

GET OVER IT. It's obviously that you TOO , hate every god but YOURS. Pot calling the kettle black, much ???

But church members do. Try again, you bigot.

Ooooooohhhh!!! That one hurt.

And that is a very fair assessment from a level-headed poster on this forum... bravo to you!

I personally have no problem with this guy wearing the pin, and actually feel a little sorry for him. In his mind, he probably thought he was doing the right thing.

However, Home Depot has every right to terminate him. Big companies like Home Depot don't just fire people out of the blue. They have rather large HR departments to ensure that hirings and firings are handled properly.

They didn't just see him reading a bible and can him on the spot; they asked him to remove the pin, offered him a different secular one, and he refused to take his original pin off. So, not only did he violate company policy, but he was insubordinate as well.

I have not seen Home Depot's employee manual, but I'm sure there is a big section devoted to what is and what is not acceptable attire, including any accessories. This young man broke the rules. End of story.

The real guilty party here is MSNBC for sensationalizing this story with a misleading headline, and getting people all worked up over nothing.

The real headline should read "Idiot loses his job in horrible economy, because he's too stubborn to adhere to company policy".

Huzzah! You're so right!

First, he didn't say he worn the pin to promote religion, but to support his country, although he is also Christian. Second, the bible tells Christians to spread the word of God and to promote God...so that would be why us "Christians" feel we need to advertise God.

Interestingly, Muslims also believe that they must "promote God". The Muslim God is the God of Abraham, who is also the God of Mohammed. Who, by the way, is the very same God that King David worshiped and is now the God of Christian worship.

How is it then that followers of the two religions are at each others throats and feel so very far apart when they are worshiping the very same God?

Just my ponderings on the subject.

Same reason the Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in the Thirty Years War.

Same reason the Christians sentenced Galileo to prison for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Same reason they blacklisted Darwin.

Same reason the terrorists blew up the WTC.

Same reason the ancient Israelites ran around Canaan hacking people to death for having the wrong religion.

Religion impairs your ability to think clearly and critically about real issues, because it forces you to cling to an incoherent mess of a misguided worldview based on fairy tales.

Because they are all wackos, silly people, who just love to argue my religion is better than your religion. My interpretation is better than yours and you will go to hell for it since you don't believe what I believe.

No matter how many Jim Jones and jonestowns are formed these nuts will still follow someone to their doom and give away their hard earned money to their religion in expectation to get browney points to from their so called god.

It's frustrating, isn't it?

Oh well, if people think they get something from indulging in fairy tales, that's their problem I guess.

I just hope I live to see the day when the majority of people on Earth wake up and realize how silly religion is.

Carl W is upset only because his mother didn't love him & weaned him from the breast too soon.... There, there Carl; it'll all be okay in your fairytale utopia of non-spiritual beliefs, where unicorn farts & fairy dust magically make everything all peachy...

to HJwhite,

First the company probably didn't notice it until he started advancing his mental illness by bringing a bible to work and probably trying to convert people to his deific leadership, during his breaks.

Oh and it's a fact, and if your'e a christian you must believe on pain of hell eternal, that the bible was written by mortals. It was written, much like the Quran, to force people to follow certain mortal leaders or face hell eternal or death or worse persecution in life. If god had wanted his word written, he should have had Jesus write it down, not all the hundreds of self-proclaimed prophets which came later. Unfortunately, while history states that God gave Jesus the power to heal, he didn't give him the power to read or write.

The guy made a choice, clear and simple, to disobey his employer. He chose that the button was more important than his job. That's his choice, this is America.

I wish him luck, but he needs to work in a church and get paid by people who want to pay him for his beliefs.

I concur, they should NOT have taken a year to enforce a policy and that fact may come back to bite them in the a$$.

It appears on the surface, that Home Depot was probably trying to give the guy a little 'room' to express himself, especially considering our country was involved in a war. However, management may have felt a bit uncomfortable about the 'room' they were giving him when they noticed that giving someone an inch usually ends up in someone taking a mile. In this case, the guy didn't stop with the button, but started bringing the Bible to the workplace as well. My guess, is they were concerned that continued 'allowance' of his breaks from policies might lead to even further problems. So, they decided to enforce the policy. Actually, he was given latitude, because they were trying to make an employee happy. But as is usually the case, human nature kicks in and people just aren't satisfied and want to push it. In the end, what will happen is due to this guy suing, Home Depot will bend over less and less to make thier employees happy. Sadly, the actions of one disgruntled person who feels that they are somehow entitled to rights that just aren't there, will ruin it for everyone else.

Obviously none of you have any HR experience. While most states allow either party (company or employee) the right to terminate employment at will, the facts are that when it comes to a company firing someone they MUST document, document, document or they'll end up being sued for wrongful termination or accused of terminating for the wrong reasons. Documenting takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. I've seen it over and over.

Companies must keep track of every incident, writing it all down, so they have a record to back up their reasons for firing (in this case a record of just how many times they asked this guy to NOT wear that particular button and how many times he continued to violate the company rule). Once they have enough to back up their reasons, they fire the person.

He won't have a leg to stand on in the courts, which is why he's trying this case in the press & going for public sympathy. Trying cases in the press usually backfires. The rules are the rules, he broke them repeatedly, the company has the documentation to back it up, end of story.

PC Princess, you think that bringing a Bible to work to read on his lunch period is "pushing it"??? You think he was given an inch and took a mile? HIs allowance of breaks from policy? Are you saying that it is Home Depot's POLICY that he is not allowed to bring a Bible to read during breaks? How did you assume all that nonsense from what was written? You're making stuff up!

If non-believers have a view that the Bible is a work of fiction, then someone reading a 'fiction book' at a lunch break should be no problem...

SG...

I would also add, this person states he is a student. It may also be that he is less than full-time. If his hours did not happen to coincide with the presence of a manager who noticed or cared about enforcing a company policy, he could also have gained time here.

This story is the usual media-sensationalized, slanted article. There are many details missing.

But what is not missing is that an employer had a policy, an employee broke it knowingly, at some point of the employer's choosing (there is no statute of limitations in these cases), the employer attempted a compromise with the employee, the employee refused, and was thus terminated.

The employer enforced a pre-established dress code rule, pertaining to all pins on all uniforms. The employee chose to break the rule, refused to comply or compromise.

I fail to see where religion or patriotism has anything to do with any of this.

I think that if you put a pin in your nose and hair that's has never seen a comb from birth should be strictly enforce also at HD

I think he wanted to create all this controversy!!! Just like ballon boy! He needs to take personal responsibility. He wore the button knowing it was against policy he needs to accept the consequences, but instead he ran to the media. Doesn't that tell ya some thing?

My place of work has very strict policies about everything. We are not able to wear any clothing that has logos or slogans. We had an employee who pushed it, wore a t-shirt saying "What would Jesus do?". She was asked not to wear it again, and she did so they let her go. It didn't help her much she was a lousy employee. We also had a young man who wore a t-shirt with a skater logo who, after the 4th or 5th time was asked not to wear it again. He didn't and kept his job.

If the rule is applied fairly to all employees than the firing was just. If he was singled out then that is unfair. And how was his performance on the job??? Maybe he was a jerk to the customers and the staff. Maybe he was lazy and not performing up to standards. So when the opportunity to get rid of him presented itself, HD took it.

So the firemen that put the American flag up at Ground Zero with the slogan "in God we trust", should have been fired also? He wasn't wearing a t-shirt. It was a pin! Who is being religious here? He was being patriotic! We are at war. Thank God, and yes I typed the word God, that there are people out there making statements that they are patriotic and are backing our military. Home Depot probably sells the pins!!!!

In God We Trust was added in the 1950's. Read the Treaty of Tripoli and study history. Then we can talk.

Our American money doesn't have "God is Dead" written on it either does it? And it's not just a building store. Check it out at Christmas? They have everything from religious to Christmas elves and they sell them! And to Bass 1952. Right on! I've seen much worse in there on piercings and hair. The sad thing is that this should have been left alone.

I feel sorry for those that believe there is no God.

For then they only have their selfs to look up to.

P...

The really sad thing is that in a country based on laws and rules, there are still parents raising their children to believe those things do not apply to them, and that if a teacher, employer, or even law enforcement officer tells them they need to follow the rules, they can just get a lawyer and sue for their "rights".

What's sad is HD will probably settle this somehow. The text on the pin doesn't matter. They have a dress code, he violated it, they gave him the chance to remedy the situation, and he chose not to.

End of story.

Let's take a survey and see how many Home Depot workers wore "Yes, we can!" buttons during the campaign. Those are not approved by HD either, but I bet they were not told to remove them.

The fishy thing about this case is the fact that he wore that button for a whole year and there was no problem until he started reading his Bible on his lunch hour. Odds are that one of his "tolerant" liberal co-workers complained about that and the store used the button as a convenient excuse to can him.

I noticed that HD doesn`t sell very(if any) nativity (or any religious) scenes during Christmas anymore. They just sell Santa stuff. Does anybody know where I can but a lawn nativity scene in Oregon that doesn`t cost an arm and leg?

Score one for standing up to religious morons.

Has anyone even considered that a customer may have complained??? That maybe why it was addressed after a year if this kid wearing it. Management probably overlooked it, but if a customer complained then management would have been forced to bring it to his attention and make him follow the rules!

Look. I'm a Christian and a patriot. If my company says not to where the button, I don't where the button. I work for them, not the other way around.

Now, having said that, if they tell me I'm fired if I'm wearing the button on my own time, then we have a problem.

Tombones

You sound brave. How about taking a trip to Chicago and telling the Nation of Islam that they are religious morons? Or maybe you could go to Ireland and tell the IRA that they are religious morons. Or then there's the Native Americans doing their ancient thing; go to a reservation and tell them they are religious morons. Talk is cheap.

excuse me, God's followers are FORGIVEN not PERFECT......let's have the first perfect person step forward...you wanna do it?

THE FOUNDING FATHERS were Godly men who acknowledged God in SO MANY ways...this country was founded on the principles of the God of abraham, isaac and jacob..............you sound like you'd like to rewrite our history....sorry, no can do.....

Actually, nkarot0707, the founding fathers told us, officially, that the US was not founded as a christian nation. Not in a letter, not in a speech...in a official US treaty with the force of law. Check out article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli.

Some (not all) of the founding fathers commented on their Personal beliefs...they did not put any of that into official US documents.

Its a shame so many people are mis-educated.

When I heard about this, I fired Home Depot. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with separation of church and state -- which, by the way, was grabbed out of thin are by a former KKK lawyer that FDR sneaked onto the Supreme Court. This is about anti-Christian bigotry and driving God totally out of everyone's life.

The Spirit...

This has nothing to do with religion or patriotism. This sensationalizing media story has caused a lot of people to make a lot of assumptions. The crucial facts remain though.

1. Employer has long-standing policy for all employees saying only company-approved pins are allowed on uniforms, which employee agreed to upon being hired.

2. Employee knowingly broke this rule for a year before finally all procedures and documentation required by HR to document a dismissal for cause is completed.

3. Employee attends the final step, mediation, where he is offered an approved pin meeting his supposedly expressed needs.

4. Employee then refuses, saying it is not enough.

5. Employer then enforces employment policy and terminates employee for violation of an established compsny policy.

The pin could have been a campaign button, a Mickey Mouse pin, or an advertisement for a competitor. It doesn't matter. A rule is a rule.

I wish more people would teach their children to follow the rules as laid out for them ahead of time in school, instead of letting them think they can make their own and Mommy and Daddy will get them a lawyer.

He was a part-time employee who obviously has little understanding of what it means to voluntarily sign an employment contract and be chosen over many others who want and need a job. It is a shame he did not learn this from this experience instead of just screaming "lawsuit" and thinking he is above laws and rules, and the people who do obey them.