Costco Fires Catholic Who Denied Knights of Columbus Hall for Lesbian "Marriage"

[otm]

Ani Ibi:

Of course. Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

No, you are presuming that Costco is engaging in anti-Catholic behavior. Read my post again. I don’t think they did anything of the sort; they had two employees who were getting into personal animosity towards one another. They could fire him with no animoisty or bad intent against the Catholic Church whatwoever; it simply comes down to firing the one who is least likely to have a major claim against the corporation.

She could sue their socks off; he goes out like a whimper.

He is not being fired for being Catholic; he is being fired for not getting along with another employee and causing trouble in the workplace.

Had he taken a position on a different issue, say, women working insted of staying home with their children, and created difficulties by letting his attitude toward other women working there be displayed to the point of raising their ire, he is going to get fired for that.

Costco didn’t fire him for not renting the hall; Costco fired him because he couldn’t get along with the rest of the workforce.

And the bottom line is that she set him up with the hall renting bit; and you can bet your last dollar she did that because she and he had had friction before. there is no reason to get mad at Costco. If he had kept his opinions to himself at the workplace, he would still be filling shelves.

 

[Rosalinda]

Many of the largest corporations in America have bought into the homosexual agenda and are helping to fashion a future in which Christian, orthodox Jewish and other employees who hold traditional beliefs will face discipline, loss of promotions and even get fired for their beliefs. It’s also a future in which Christian-owned companies will lose contracts and face discrimination lawsuits if they act to uphold Christian morality. In California, under a state law, companies that do business with the state government must subsidize homosexual relationships, regardless of the beliefs of the company owners.

In the name of “diversity,” America is becoming a place in which Christians will find themselves on the wrong side of corporate policies if they cling to their belief that marriage requires one man and one woman, and that homosexuality is outside God’s plan for healthy living.

Corporate “gay” activism is a Trojan horse for the larger social agenda of destroying America’s Judeo-Christian-based foundation and replacing it with an anything-goes, hedonistic society hostile to Biblical morality.

from the Corporate Curtain by Robert Knight.

cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=9808&department=cfi&categoryid=resources

 

[otm]

Rosalinda:

from the Corporate Curtain by Robert Knight.

cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=9808&department=cfi&categoryid=resources

I am not in disagreement with the statements you have quoted. However, from the commentary to how this incident appears to have played out, none of it shows that Cotsco has bought into any gay agenda, nor does it go to show that Costco did anything other than resolve a personnel dispute in a way that would minimize it’s exposure to a lawsuit. No one can rationally blame Costco for following the laws of Canada. Following the laws does not mean that they either approve or disapprove of the laws; it simply means that as a corporation doing business, they are going to make decisions that make business sence; and not exposing oneself to a lawsuit is generally an accepted business practice.

My concern is that throughout this thread any number of people have suggested that Costco is doing more than generally accepted bdusiness practices and following the law. It appears that some poor journalism and little or no research, coupled with a reaction that appears to be poorly thought out is at work.

I am reminded of the charges, totally bogus, against Protcor and Gamble concerning charges made word of mouth that it was somehow involved in witchcraft.

If one is going to exercise any sense of responsiblity, including at least a minimal lip service to the issue of giving scandal, one should do a bit to ascertain the truth of charges before making decsions to state publicly that one recommends boycotting because of some perceived act; particularly when one has little information upon which to make that decision.

Costco is a legal entity that has a legal right to theri good name; before assumning that an individual was fired for a non-business activity, one should at least find out if that was the grounds for the firing. Given these circumstances, I doubt that was the case. It appears much more likely they fired someone for not being able to get along with a co-worker. That the individual fired may have been set up certainly appears possible; but the employer is not in the business of sorting out personnel issues as to rightness or wrongness; they are in the business of selling goods and services, and expect their employees to keep personal animosities out of the workplace.

 

[Crow]

soulspeak23:

I could say the EXACT same thing about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic chruch does not share in the hipocrisy.

We do NOT claim to be tolerant of sinful and perversed and wrong life styles.

We are tolerant of the person, the sinner and even better; we forgive and love them by our own commandements. But we do not tolerate the behavior if this behavior is against natural law or sinful.

 

[Crow]

m134e5:

[snip]

“Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions”- G.K. Chesterton

That is a great quote!

I always say tolerance is the worse mistake of our modern times… but this quote is so much better!

 

[Rosalinda]

OTM, I certainly agree with you that people have a right to their good name and it is difficult to ascertain all the facts. Maybe you should reread the circumstances surrounding the firing of Dave Hauser as you seem to have missed some very salient points in assuming the hothead in the workplace was Mr. Hauser who couldn’t ‘keep his opinions to himself.’

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121302.html

My understanding is that his supervisor, Mike Checko, was openly gay and went so far as to order Dave to rent the hall to his co-worker after he had learned of the K.of C.'s reversal. A former supervisor at Costco, Jared Gilles, even stated in writing that he believed Dave had been blacklisted. Far from remaining impartial and sticking to business management was interfering with a God fearing employee and trying to draw him into arguments. As you yourself stated, ‘to set him up’.

Apart from the testimony of Jared Gilles there is the fact that Checko was demoted two weeks after the firing took place. One may logically deduce Costco was unhappy too that their good reputation was now under scrutiny. Furthermore, the findings of an officer with Human Resources Canada although carefully sidestepping the issue of wrongful dismissal, did think “there is an indication that they were looking for reasons to terminate his employment.”

Finally, the sequence of events is important. Mike Checko had suspended the luckless Knight, Dave Hauser, for three months during the summer of 2004 because he had allegedly driven a fork lift at a co-worker’s head. However, the regional office over-ruled the suspension: a strong indication they didn’t believe Dave had attempted murder. Shortly after he returned to work he was terminated for good. The letter of dismissal dated Nov. 3 cited one reason and another letter of clarification dated Nov. 23 stated a diffferent reason. By that time, Costco realized that their former employee could prove he was on vacation at the time of the alleged act of violence. In the end, Human Resources Canada made an independent review and decided in favor of Dave Hauser to allow him his unemployment insurance benefits.

OTM, as you so eloquently stated slander is very serious business; I totally agree; however, in this case, it seems a Christian was wrongfully maligned of a violent temper and he is at risk of losing his home because no one wants to hire him as a result.

The only question now is where are the Knights of Columbus and what are they doing to help their brother in need?

 

[otm]

Rosalinda:

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121302.html

Apart from the testimony of Jared Gilles there is the fact that Checko was demoted two weeks after the firing took place. One may logically deduce Costco was unhappy too that their good reputation was now under scrutiny. Furthermore, the findings of an officer with Human Resources Canada although carefully sidestepping the issue of wrongful dismissal, did think “there is an indication that they were looking for reasons to terminate his employment.”

Finally, the sequence of events is important. Mike Checko had suspended the luckless Knight, Dave Hauser, for three months during the summer of 2004 because he had allegedly driven a fork lift at a co-worker’s head. However, the regional office over-ruled the suspension: a strong indication they didn’t believe Dave had attempted murder. Shortly after he returned to work he was terminated for good. The letter of dismissal dated Nov. 3 cited one reason and another letter of clarification dated Nov. 23 stated a diffferent reason. By that time, Costco realized that their former employee could prove he was on vacation at the time of the alleged act of violence. In the end, Human Resources Canada made an independent review and decided in favor of Dave Hauser to allow him his unemployment insurance benefits.

OTM, as you so eloquently stated slander is very serious business; I totally agree; however, in this case, it seems a Christian was wrongfully maligned of a violent temper and he is at risk of losing his home because no one wants to hire him as a result.

The only question now is where are the Knights of Columbus and what are they doing to help their brother in need?

well, there may be a few questions beyone that, but I agree that the Knights need to pull together.

You have more facts than I and I will assume the correctness of them. It appears that a somewhat minor minion of the corporation is the main source of the difficulties. It also appears that Costco has made some attempt to correct at least some of what occured.

From the facts that you relayed concerning a prior incident, it is unlcear as to the genesis of all of the allegations against Dave, but it would appear on the surface that he was at least to some extent a participant in issues between other employees and himself; the issue of the fork lift, while it appears to be initially overplayed, indicates that he was not so simple bystander who did nothing to bring any issues on himself.

The whole issue of homosexuals in the workplace is a lively dance. If one tangles with someone who is openly homosexual, one is most likely going to lose, not because the corporation is supporting gay agendas, but because of in house politics on a very low level, a plethora of laws supporting or at least protecting rights of gays, fear of retaliation from the government, and lack of effective corporate oversight of the lower levels.

Lower level HR personnel (as in on site) are hired to prevent issues from escalating; their supervisor oftne, if not almost always is not on site, and too often only one side of a story is heard. Add to this that in most cases it is nto an issue of one being right and one being wrong, but rather a question of who was more wrong, and injustice is bound to occur. That does not make Costco a company to be boycotted.

I am sorry he lost his job. I still wonder how much he had to do with losing it. Someone who is as bland as the color grey, who has no opinion, and a good poker face, can get along in a workplace quite well. having several co-workers who are actively gay, coupled with a supervisor (or HR personnel) who is actively gay is going to be a source of major challenge. Even hinting at disapproval of their lifestyle is asking for martyrdom. If martyrdom is the result, then should one complain?

It is fine to say that the ground rules should be different, but like I told my kids when they complained that something was unfair: “Who told you it was going to be fair? They lied to you.”

He could have asked for a transfer, either in work schedule, or to another store. He could have filed a (reverse) discrimination suit. he could have done a number of things, but didn’t. I am sorry he lost his job; but I wonder what, if anything, he learned from the experience.

Maybe my experience is part of my somewhat jaundiced view, but I find that in every situation I have seen, it takes two to fight. Perhaps (as I can’t really tell from the story) he was on vacation at the time of an alleged incident; that is only proof that the inciident did not occur on the date stated, not necessarily that the incident did not occur. Perhaps he is a totally innocent victim, but methinks not.

I am not suggesting that he was at fault to the point of being fired, but I do suspect he made matters worse.