Allstate terminates manager over anti-homosexuality column

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Bella3502:
No sympathy here… If the employee did not agree with the employer’s policies, he should not have been outraged by termination.

Substitute homosexuality with Black or Muslim or Jew or woman.

The now ex-Allstate employee is still free to write whatever he wishes. I am sure he will be able to find a place of employment where his views on life are shared and protected.

I am keeping my Allstate insurance.🙂
How about “white man”?

You support Allstate’s policy on firing employees that believe homosexual marriage is wrong (in other words for advancing the Catholic position on marriage)?
 
40.png
Brad:
How about “white man”?

You support Allstate’s policy on firing employees that believe homosexual marriage is wrong (in other words for advancing the Catholic position on marriage)?
Hi Brad!

I prefer Allstate’s policy to an employment policy dictated by the government to a private company that changes based on the mores of whatever political party happens to be in the majority at the time.
 
I heard on the news today that Allstate Insurance has signed a big deal with NASCAR and Evernham Motorsports.

I wonder if they are aware of this company’s policy. Given NASCAR’s fan base, I think they would be rather uncomfortable if the point was pressed with them.

Anyone know how to contact someone at one of these organizations? Thier web sites are very unhelpful in that regard.
 
Other Eric,

What is wrong with the notion that campanies have no business poking their noses into our personal lives? They are not extensions of the government or Church or our parents, they are places of employment. How would you react if the same company said it will fire all people who spoke or wrote postively about gay people?

Is our right to free speech only valid in our homes?
 
If he wrote mean things about gays, I don’t like him. He does not need to do that. Gays can be nice. Also, the Pope and other clergy people will say the mean things if they have to be said.

FzFk
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Other Eric,

What is wrong with the notion that campanies have no business poking their noses into our personal lives? They are not extensions of the government or Church or our parents, they are places of employment. How would you react if the same company said it will fire all people who spoke or wrote postively about gay people?

Is our right to free speech only valid in our homes?
Hi TJPCatholic!

Why would I deign work for such any such company? It’s an open market. I, as a prospective employee have as much of a choice over where to seek employment as the employer has in selecting his staff. The employer’s incentive not to be as invasive as you suggest is that he wants many people to apply for positions in his company. Additionally, if his policies are both widely known and loathed, he won’t have any clients either. The result is that he won’t have the applicants, the income and eventually, he won’t have his business. All I am saying is that the market is a better disciplinarian in cases like this than is the government.

Moreover, this notion of free speech was never meant to apply to a private company. It is a right an individual has before the state. If Allstate was a government subsidiary, then this man would have a more reasonable case.
 
Other Eric,

I respectfully submit that you do not understand the right to free speech. The man in question was NOT speaking for the company, he was NOT on company time, he was NOT on company property, and he was NOT speaking about the company. He was using his right to free speech in a public forum, he was stating views that have absolutely nothing to do with the company.

The company, in its action to fire the man, is guilty of flat out discrimination.

The clear and obvious litmus test is this: Would the company take the same action if the man had written a column that was favorable to gays? I think we know the answer, they would not have taken the same action…which means they have discriminated against the man based solely on his personal out-of-company opinion!

Do you not see? We all have the right to free speech, no matter how much we may not like a given person’s speech…that is the entire concept of free speech. People can write all sorts of columns attacking the Catholic faith, calling the Pope names and Priests monsters, etc…that is all horrible stuff, yet they are completely free to feel that way and to express their views. I do NOT want to live in a nation where we cannot express our opinions in a free and non-violent manner…that is NOT what the United States stands for.

This man was wrongfully fired and Allstate is going to pay a heavy price for their anti-faith, anti-Christian position. There are already major campaigns to boycott Allstate, which will cost that company millions.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Other Eric,

I respectfully submit that you do not understand the right to free speech. The man in question was NOT speaking for the company, he was NOT on company time, he was NOT on company property, and he was NOT speaking about the company. He was using his right to free speech in a public forum, he was stating views that have absolutely nothing to do with the company.

The company, in its action to fire the man, is guilty of flat out discrimination.

The clear and obvious litmus test is this: Would the company take the same action if the man had written a column that was favorable to gays? I think we know the answer, they would not have taken the same action…which means they have discriminated against the man based solely on his personal out-of-company opinion!

Do you not see? We all have the right to free speech, no matter how much we may not like a given person’s speech…that is the entire concept of free speech. People can write all sorts of columns attacking the Catholic faith, calling the Pope names and Priests monsters, etc…that is all horrible stuff, yet they are completely free to feel that way and to express their views. I do NOT want to live in a nation where we cannot express our opinions in a free and non-violent manner…that is NOT what the United States stands for.

This man was wrongfully fired and Allstate is going to pay a heavy price for their anti-faith, anti-Christian position. There are already major campaigns to boycott Allstate, which will cost that company millions.
Hi TPJCatholic!

Boycott is appropriate. A penalty from the government is not. The First Amendment has only ever been understood to apply to the government. The Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Allstate is not Congress. Allstate is not a government entity. Therefore, unless you subscribe to some malleable constitution that can be whatever we want for it to be, Allstate’s employment policies are not are not affected. Allstate, as a private entity, does have a right to free association and just as the Boy Scouts have latitude to dismiss a member who is gay or even a member who is gay supportive, Allstate may terminate the employment of anyone who’s opinions they do not agree with regardless of where and when they are aired. If you disagree that strongly with this, then take your business elsewhere. No employee enjoys a special right to their job.
 
Other Eric,

Okay, so I assume you think it is fine if Allstate kicked out all blacks? Right? After all, they can hire and fire as they please wtihout restriction according to your logic.

Again, you show a deep lack of understanding about the nature of free speech. Again, you are ignoring the fact that this man wrote these things off work, not at work.

Tell me, do you want companies to have the right to peek into the inner areas of your life and be able to dump you out of the company because maybe you go to bed too late for their liking?

The company hires a peson to do a given job, so long as that job is being done, they have no business unjustly firing them.

Be careful with what you are preaching here…you want companies to have unrestrained power to do whateevr they please.
 
Other Eric,

Let’s take a closer look:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

==> No problem here, does not apply to our subject.

…or abridging the freedom of speech,…

==> If congress (who makes laws) is forbidden to abridge speech, certainly public companies do NOT have more authority then congress…they are not allowed to say anything about our rights.

…or of the press;

==> If congress is forbidden to stop the freedom of press, then companies cannot do that either. The man was merely using his rights to freedom of press, to publish his thoughts freely and non violently.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Other Eric,

Let’s take a closer look:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

==> No problem here, does not apply to our subject.

…or abridging the freedom of speech,…

==> If congress (who makes laws) is forbidden to abridge speech, certainly public companies do NOT have more authority then congress…they are not allowed to say anything about our rights.

…or of the press;

==> If congress is forbidden to stop the freedom of press, then companies cannot do that either. The man was merely using his rights to freedom of press, to publish his thoughts freely and non violently.
Hi TPJCatholic!

What you don’t understand is that the Constitution is only intended to restrict what the government can do. If this same employee had been fired for taking a gun to work, do you suppose he’d have a cause under the right to bear arms?
 
Other Eric,

No, the 1st amendment applies to the people, it desribes the boundaries that their government cannot take from them.

I have noticed you are quite good at ignoring my questions, so I would ask you to please give me a direct answer to the following question:

If the Allstate employee wrote a pro-gay article during his free time, do you think Allstate has the right to fire that person? (a simple yes or no will suffice)
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Other Eric,

No, the 1st amendment applies to the people, it desribes the boundaries that their government cannot take from them.

I have noticed you are quite good at ignoring my questions, so I would ask you to please give me a direct answer to the following question:

If the Allstate employee wrote a pro-gay article during his free time, do you think Allstate has the right to fire that person? (a simple yes or no will suffice)
Hi TPJCatholic!

If Allstate wants to fire an employee for writing a pro-gay article, the should be able to. I don’t think the content of what the employee writes matters at all.

As I said, Allstate has the same right to fire this man that the Boy Scouts have to terminate the membership of a homosexual. If you do not like their decision in this instance, then do not do business with Allstate. Do not, however, ask the government to abrogate Allstate’s clearly defined right to free association.
 
Other Eric,

So, you are sooo pro-business that you think that “public” companies should have zero constraints on how they fire and hire?

We are not talking about a private organization like the Boy Scouts, we are talking about a public company, and all public entitties must obey federal laws that apply to coporations. Are you saying that those laws should be tossed? Should Allstate have the power to hire only black people, or only people under 30?

You seem to think it is okay for any given company to literally trash the United States Consitution.
 
Followup on the Story:
E-mails pour into Allstate
over firing
Ex-employee says firm canned him due to homosexuality column
Posted: June 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Thousands of e-mails are pouring into Allstate after the American Family Association yesterday informed its supporters of a lawsuit filed against the insurance giant by a former employee who alleges he was terminated because he wrote a column posted on several websites that was critical of same-sex marriage and espoused his Christian beliefs.
The article as a link to the site where the protest letter can be found and sent.

PF
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Other Eric,

This man was wrongfully fired and Allstate is going to pay a heavy price for their anti-faith, anti-Christian position. There are already major campaigns to boycott Allstate, which will cost that company millions.
TPJCatholic:

You will be glad to hear this about Allstate Insurance:

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER JOHN GARAMENDI ANNOUNCES $30 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH ALLSTATE INSURANCE; AS MANY AS 250,000 POLICIES COULD QUALIFY FOR RETURN OF PREMIUMS OR CREDITS ON FUTURE PREMIUM BILLS

Allstate Also Agrees to a $4 million Fine – One of the Largest Fines in Department History

*LOS ANGELES – Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi announced today that he and Allstate Insurance Company have reached a settlement by which the nation’s second largest property and casualty insurer has agreed to provide more than $30 million in policy credits and premium returns to eligible California policyholders.
Code:
    The Commissioner also announced that as part of the settlement Allstate will pay a $4 million fine. The fine addresses issues that arose from a 2002 examination of Allstate’s handling of its auto and homeowners policies, as well as its use of credit scoring.

    “The insurance consumers of California deserve to be treated fairly by their insurers,” said Commissioner Garamendi. “This settlement and fine send a strong message to other insurers that this Department will aggressively pursue all allegations of injustice to policyholders.”

    The settlement resolves issues stemming from a number of practices that arose during the Department’s investigation, which covered the period between January 1, 2000 and April 12, 2002. The allegations include:*
*Allstate’s use of “Financial Stability” criteria, a form of credit scoring, to underwrite property coverage, resulting in the placement of some consumers in a program with higher rates;
· Allstate’s failure to charge the lowest premium for which the policyholder qualified upon renewal;
· Allstate’s use of prior renters coverage resulted in the placement of some consumers in programs with higher rates;
· Allstate’s failure to provide its Home and Auto discount to policyholders whose auto policies were written in Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company;
· Allstate’s failure to assign the lowest filed rate for all driver-related factors on policies with excess vehicles (i.e. policies with more vehicles than drivers).
According to the settlement, some policyholders will receive credits on upcoming premium bills, while others will have premiums returned in the form of a check. Allstate has also agreed to review its claims handling practices and take certain corrective actions with regard to the 2003 Southern California Wildfires, although none of the premium returns or credits is related to the Wildfires.
Code:
    These actions include:
· Reviewing its processes for handling contents claims to address and resolve any processes that are duplicative;
· Addressing and resolving any processes or procedures that may confuse customers by having multiple adjusters handle a particular file;
· Making changes or enhancements to new business underwriting practices that will allow for an identifiable record of the basis upon which a home’s replacement cost estimate was made;
· Changing underwriting practices so that the replacement cost estimation program used in the homeowner business is the same program used for Allstate Landlord Property Policies;
· Reviewing those files related to the Southern California wildfires where Allstate or the CDI has received complaints regarding the Additional Living Expense (ALE);
· Proceeding with mediations on those Southern California wildfire cases for which the CDI contends Allstate provided an agreement to mediate under the CDI’s voluntary mediation program. *

communitydispatch.com/artman/publish/article_1287.shtml

Morte here:

insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&lnid=291260260
insurancejournal.com/news/west/2005/06/27/56664.htm
msnbc.msn.com/id/8377727/

It appears that Allstate, contrary to the advertising, is neither moral nor ethical, and that firing the Christian was just part of an unethical pattern of conduct.

Hopefully, the $34 MILLION fine and repayment will be matched by losses due to the boycott. They, maybe the people who run the company will learn that ethics and morals DO count.

Blessings on those who act to save God’s Little Ones. Michael
 
Other Eric:
Hi TPJCatholic!

If Allstate wants to fire an employee for writing a pro-gay article, the should be able to. I don’t think the content of what the employee writes matters at all.

As I said, Allstate has the same right to fire this man that the Boy Scouts have to terminate the membership of a homosexual. If you do not like their decision in this instance, then do not do business with Allstate. Do not, however, ask the government to abrogate Allstate’s clearly defined right to free association.
Other Eric:

Allstate is a PUBLICLY HELD FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION Subject to the by-laws of the SEC and and all the other acts to which such entities are subject. Allstate exists to make a profit by providing services to the community for a fee, which is never waivable.

The Boy Scouts of America is a PRIVATE NON-PROFIT CHARITIABLE ORGANIZATION whose sole purpose is to benefit the boys who are its members, who pay dues and fees which are waivable depending upon the income of the boys’ and their families.

These are two completely different types of organizations covered by completely different sets of Federal Laws.

I read some of your previous posts, and I saw that you understood that much of the “Child Molestation Scandal” actually involved homosexual priests having sex with boys who were between 11-17. This supports the BSA’s decision since that’s the ages for boy scouts and explorer scouts.

The BSA, miraculously, escaped having that scandal.

I have to assume that you are a LIBERTARIAN in political philosophy. Although I find some logic to Liberanianism, I find that having a government functional AMMORALLY, although it may sound easy, doesn’t really work socially.

We need a government to have a MORAL Public Policy, and not one based on convenience or which party happens to be in power - that requies vigillence on the part of those of us who vote and pay our taxes. It requires that we stay involved in how our government works, and it requires that we insist that our values (which are the majority values) be the one the govenment represents in its Laws.

And, it may require that we actively supporft Godly candidates, oppose ungodly ones and that we be willing to take and give a few lumps.

The other choice is either to ceed the field to the Ungodly, or to insist on a Libertarian form of government which is incapable of dealing with real national and regional emergencies or od developing areas of the country to the benefit of all so that the Ungodly have no real power.

The only problem with that is, the Ungodly have ways of grabbing power when the decent aren’t looking.

So, we have to decide what laws we as a people want to be in place and what laws we want enforced.

Remember, Libertarianism only worked when Small Government was confronting Small Business and Small Labor. That’s not the case today.

God Bless, Michael
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Found this over on another BBs I visit:
Looks like I will be shoppinhg for a new insurer when my policy is up in a few months. And I will give th is as the reason no matter how the case comes out.

PF
Wow, I didn’t know that Allstate supported such things! :banghead: They won’t be getting any of my money!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top