Fired Home Depot cashier - how do Right-leaning people feel? [Archive]

Rumor_Watkins

10-29-2009, 09:56 AM

Sorry, "Home Depot associate"

Front page of Yahoo news:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. – A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.

"I've worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God," Trevor Keezor said Tuesday. "I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country."

The American flag button Keezer wore in the Florida store since March 2008 says "One nation under God, indivisible."...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_god_button_home_depot

So, how do the righties handle it? It's like the perfect scenario where their two cherished beliefs - the existence of a christian god and the mandate that this entire nation get on board with that concept as it is fundamental to ordered society, and the belief that government should get the eff out of people's lives and not tell them what to do and think, and let private actors do as they please -- are diametrically opposed to each other.

DanBlather

10-29-2009, 10:15 AM

Like usual, they will hold both positions simultaneously.

lalenin

10-29-2009, 10:22 AM

Sorry, "Home Depot associate"

Front page of Yahoo news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_god_button_home_depot

So, how do the righties handle it? It's like the perfect scenario where their two cherished beliefs - the existence of a christian god and the mandate that this entire nation get on board with that concept as it is fundamental to ordered society, and the belief that government should get the eff out of people's lives and not tell them what to do and think, and let private actors do as they please -- are diametrically opposed to each other.

Well, how do you feel about it? If this is just a poll perhaps it belongs in another forum.

smiling bandit

10-29-2009, 10:24 AM

So, how do the righties handle it? It's like the perfect scenario where their two cherished beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other.

No really. The two are not absolutes in either case. Home Depot has a perfect right to fire the worker.

That does not mean its actions were wise or useful at all; that's as may be. There has been a growing intolerance of anyone displaying religious sentiment in public (except during campaign speeches), and I say that's rather stupid. I don't agree with Islam, but I wouldn't fire someone who wore a button saying "There is not God but God." Now would I fire a Hindu for having a small desktop shrine or a Jew for... uh... well... doing something Jewish (sorry, drawing total blank right now).

I believe in tolerance. I do not necessarily believe in approval, and I'm free to seperate the two. However, if Home Depot decided it didn't want to support the worker's message, that's their right. And more likely it just wanted to avoid being "offensive" to whomever happened to walk in the door, or wanted to maintain a veyr high level of professionalism (i.e., eviscerate any trace of personality ;) ).

Simplicio

10-29-2009, 10:32 AM

NThere has been a growing intolerance of anyone displaying religious sentiment in public (except during campaign speeches), and I say that's rather stupid..

Eh, its not really clear that Home Depot had any particular problem with the content of the guys pin so much as they didn't want him wearing any not officially approved pin. For all we know, the same thing would've happened if he'd worn a "hooray for cookies" button. Just from the article, it sounded like his boss was in a pissy mood and decided to give him crap about breaking a minor regulation, and the guy told him to take a hike, leading to his firing.

Note the Home Depot was in Okeechobee. Not exactly a hot-bed of atheism.

Sateryn76

10-29-2009, 10:34 AM

Don't forget that not all "righties" are with Jesus. I am a "rightie" economically, but have no use for "the Lord".

I see it this way...assuming the business is in an "at-will" state, they can legally do whatever they want in terms of firing the guy, assuming no civil rights discrimination.

Personally, I prefer it when people wear buttons like this. That makes it easy to figure who the smart ones are :)

JXJohns

10-29-2009, 10:35 AM

Self described Righty here chiming in here. The First Amendment applies to to .gov not Home Depot. Their business, their rules. Most RW leaning boards that I frequent agree with me, except for the occasional wing nut crying out for a boycott of the Depot.

Sorry if you were looking for more drama.

Rumor_Watkins

10-29-2009, 10:38 AM

Airman Doors, USAF

10-29-2009, 10:39 AM

Oakminster

10-29-2009, 10:44 AM

Bricker

10-29-2009, 10:45 AM

So, how do the righties handle it? It's like the perfect scenario where their two cherished beliefs - the existence of a christian god and the mandate that this entire nation get on board with that concept as it is fundamental to ordered society, and the belief that government should get the eff out of people's lives and not tell them what to do and think, and let private actors do as they please -- are diametrically opposed to each other.

I doubt you'll find any huge contingent of conservatives calling for government action to cure this problem.

In my view, the Home Depot has every right to dictate what uniform elements their employees wear, and I don't have the slightest concern with this firing.

But let's pretend I did.

What would be my "righty" reaction?

Calling for a boycott of Home Depot would not intrude the least on the second "cherished belief" the OP mentions. A boycott is, after all, private actors doing as they please. If I felt the firing was unjustified, and the remedy for it was cutting up my Home Depot credit card and shopping at Lowes from now on, I'd be perfectly consistent with that second cherished belief.

So I'd be curious to ask the OP -- or, indeed, anyone else -- is anyone aware of any "righty" source that suggests the firing should have been illegal, that the fired employee has or should have some sort of legal remedy at hand?

furt

10-29-2009, 10:46 AM

not looking for drama. just curious to know which one of the republican party's tenets gets thrown out the window first.In other words, you weren't looking for a serious discussion, but a pit thread.

Consider your ignorance fought.

Bricker

10-29-2009, 10:47 AM

Like usual, they will hold both positions simultaneously.

Who is doing that?

not looking for drama. just curious to know which one of the republican party's tenets gets thrown out the window first.

Why should either of the identified ideals be discarded?

Are either of you familiar with a strawman argument?

mswas

10-29-2009, 10:49 AM

What an asinine move. They could've just asked him to take it off.

Simplicio

10-29-2009, 10:49 AM

What an asinine move. They could've just asked him to take it off.

And you could've just RTFA. They did indeed ask him to take it off, and fired him when he refused.

mswas

10-29-2009, 10:51 AM

And you could've just RTFA. They did indeed ask him to take it off, and fired him when he refused.

Yes, I suppose I could do that too.

Regardless it's a dumb move, Home Depot doesn't need the constituency that builds stuff with their hands hating them.

But hey at least the liberals who hire Mexicans to do the work for them will approve. ;)

Rumor_Watkins

10-29-2009, 10:53 AM

In other words, you weren't looking for a serious discussion, but a pit thread.

Consider your ignorance fought.

what if the person is fired for being a certain color or gender? to many, religious affiliation is (just as) immutable. so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities that people would take offense to being told that they couldn't express an immutable componnent of their personality for 8/24ths of a day. like the employee apparently did.

it's not a pit thread - it's a valid question as to whether people on the political right have more regard for their religiosity or the government's staying out of this issue. there are many times commentators on the right bring up the notion of "christian values" as guiding lights for the political direction of this country - it's not unreasonable that some of these commentators would therefore take offense when a private actor is telling another party to rid themselves of their religious iconography.

JThunder

10-29-2009, 11:07 AM

not looking for drama. just curious to know which one of the republican party's tenets gets thrown out the window first.I don't want to be snarky, but do you realize how that phrasing comes across? It sure sounds like an appeal for some drama.

Simplicio

10-29-2009, 11:08 AM

Regardless it's a dumb move, Home Depot doesn't need the constituency that builds stuff with their hands hating them.

Probably, though again, the Home Depot policy seems to be that they don't want any non-approved buttons, so it's not like they were gunning for a religious controversy. Presumably the point of the blanket ban was to avoid having managers have to figure out whose buttons might piss people off or were some obscure reference to something offensive

mswas

10-29-2009, 11:32 AM

Well the guy ultimately was a self-important twit. The idea that having some piece of plastic trash pinned to your clothes supports God and Country in any way is childish facile nonsense.

Sam Stone

10-29-2009, 11:51 AM

I think you're going to get a completely consistent response from most 'righties': Home Depot has a right to fire the guy. Others have the right to organize a boycott or shop elsewhere if they find the firing offensive.

I'm completely confused by what principles you thought would come into conflict here.

Let me ask YOU a question: How would you feel if the person was fired because he refused to remove a ribbon pin in support of gay rights? How about if a Muslim woman refused to remove her veil? The 'righty' answer is still consistent: Home depot can fire them if it wishes, and we are free to not shop there, or to organize a boycott if we feel strongly enough about it. How about you?

And if you really wanted to have a reasonable debate and you weren't just trying to bait people, you might have tried penning a more even-handed and factually correct OP.

So, how do the righties handle it? It's like the perfect scenario where their two cherished beliefs - the existence of a christian god and the mandate that this entire nation get on board with that concept as it is fundamental to ordered society, and the belief that government should get the eff out of people's lives and not tell them what to do and think, and let private actors do as they please -- are diametrically opposed to each other.

This is flat-out wrong. First of all, being religious is not a 'righty' thing. Religion spans all political beliefs, as does atheism. Check out the religious status of the current occupant of the White House for confirmation. Second, 'righties' do not require any sort of religious mandate. I have not heard a single 'righty' call for Christianity to be the state religion, or for other religions to be persecuted. This includes the religious right. What they are sensitive to is what they perceive as being a lopsided attack on their faith under the guise of separation of church and state. For example, someone's child being barred from giving a valedictorian speech because she wants to thank Jesus. That feels to them more like an attack on their religion than a protection of others against a state-supported church.

But 'righties' understand the difference between government and private industry. You might have gotten a more interesting result if you had asked how righties would feel if a citizen was not allowed into a government hearing because she was wearing an overtly Christian symbol, or if a student was told to remove a crucifix pendant while in school because it was a display of religion in a government setting.

cwthree

10-29-2009, 11:59 AM

to many, religious affiliation is (just as) immutable. so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities that people would take offense to being told that they couldn't express an immutable componnent of their personality for 8/24ths of a day. like the employee apparently did.
"The many" are wrong. In any case, the employee wasn't told that he couldn't express or indulge his religious affiliation. He was told not to wear a pin as part of his work uniform. Unless his branch of Christianity requires the conspicuous display of this item, this argument doesn't hold water.

aruvqan

10-29-2009, 12:00 PM

furt

10-29-2009, 12:30 PM

what if the person is fired for being a certain color or gender? to many, religious affiliation is (just as) immutable. so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities that people would take offense to being told that they couldn't express an immutable componnent of their personality for 8/24ths of a day. like the employee apparently did.

it's not a pit thread - it's a valid question as to whether people on the political right have more regard for their religiosity or the government's staying out of this issue. there are many times commentators on the right bring up the notion of "christian values" as guiding lights for the political direction of this country - it's not unreasonable that some of these commentators would therefore take offense when a private actor is telling another party to rid themselves of their religious iconography.As several people have pointed out, the way your posts are phrased, you do not sound as if you are not sincerely asking a question about what other people think, but looking for a "gotcha" against "the righties.

Bryan Ekers

10-29-2009, 12:42 PM

If he's wearing the button in question in the news photo, I gotta say, that's one big blue button. It'll certainly clash with the standard orange Home Depot smock, so not only does he loves his country, he wants to be damn sure everybody notices he loves his country.

I'd fire 'im just for bein' a jerk!

Thudlow Boink

10-29-2009, 12:49 PM

Home Depot has a rule that says something like "Only buttons issued by the company may be worn as part of the company uniform". Employee breaks rule. Home Depot says hey, stop doing that. Employee refuses. Home Depot fires him. Not seeing any problem here.That's pretty much it. If he has to wear flair, he should work at Chotchke's.

But I can't help but wonder, what's the difference between this case and the city bus driver who was suspended for wearing a pink tie (http://www.sj-r.com/local/x23521106/Bus-driver-never-expected-attention-over-pink-tie).

MovieMogul

10-29-2009, 12:59 PM

That does not mean its actions were wise or useful at all; that's as may be. There has been a growing intolerance of anyone displaying religious sentiment in public (except during campaign speeches), and I say that's rather stupid. I don't agree with Islam, but I wouldn't fire someone who wore a button saying "There is not God but God." Now would I fire a Hindu for having a small desktop shrine or a Jew for... uh... well... doing something Jewish (sorry, drawing total blank right now).
Performing a bris.

Bricker

10-29-2009, 01:06 PM

It's like the perfect scenario where their two cherished beliefs - the existence of a christian god and the mandate that this entire nation get on board with that concept as it is fundamental to ordered society, and the belief that government should get the eff out of people's lives and not tell them what to do and think, and let private actors do as they please -- are diametrically opposed to each other.

So, does it disappoint you to discover there's no such dichotomy here?

Stuffy

10-29-2009, 01:18 PM

That's pretty much it. If he has to wear flair, he should work at Chotchke's.

But I can't help but wonder, what's the difference between this case and the city bus driver who was suspended for wearing a pink tie (http://www.sj-r.com/local/x23521106/Bus-driver-never-expected-attention-over-pink-tie).

The guy worked for a bus company, so it's probably a quasi-government agency.

BlinkingDuck

10-29-2009, 01:24 PM

Oh C'mon...this is easy!

They will support the company's right to fire the worker...but will boycott the store.

Edit - I see I was way late.

StusBlues

10-29-2009, 01:29 PM

Oh C'mon...this is easy!

They will support the company's right to fire the worker...but will boycott the store.

Edit - I see I was way late.

Late, but probably correct.

JXJohns

10-29-2009, 01:32 PM

Late, but probably correct.

Sort of like the "lefties" boycotting Glen Beck's advertisers for his egregious use of the first amendment?

CurtC

10-29-2009, 01:51 PM

not looking for drama. just curious to know which one of the republican party's tenets gets thrown out the window first.

I don't see why a right-winger would have any conflict. They could be pissed as all hell that Home Depot fired the guy, while never questioning the idea that Home Depot has the legal right to fire whomever they want.

It's not a Republican tenet that anything someone may do that's objectionable should be illegal. They make think that in the areas of sexuality, but in employment and economics, it's the Democrats who see it that way.

panache45

10-29-2009, 02:04 PM

. . . the belief that government should get the eff out of people's lives and not tell them what to do and think . . .

I don't know where you live, but . . . is Home Depot your government?

John Mace

10-29-2009, 02:10 PM

JXJohns

10-29-2009, 02:19 PM

There's a third angle here that hasn't been explored, although I'm not implying it would create any new "drama". I first thought of "why does WalMart hate America?" when I read this, since the phrase in question is from the Pledge.

Good question. If the button read "...indivisible" or "...and to the Republic" or "...to the flag" would there be the smug assumption that the "rightys" would get uppity as well?

Wheelz

10-29-2009, 02:22 PM

Regardless it's a dumb move, Home Depot doesn't need the constituency that builds stuff with their hands hating them. Huh? Are you saying that liberals and/or atheists don't build stuff with their hands? On what do you base this assumption?

Tom Tildrum

10-29-2009, 02:29 PM

I'm curious about the OP's own views of the incident. Does Rumor_Watkins support unlimited corporate power or unchecked religious fanaticism?

:dubious::p

Chronos

10-29-2009, 03:24 PM

C'mon, Bricker, this is just too easy:Who is doing that? [holding both positions simultaneously]Yourself, for one, in the very same post:Why should either of the identified ideals be discarded?Go ahead and argue that the two principles are not in conflict (and frankly, I agree with you on that one), but then don't also try to argue that nobody's arguing that.

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 03:27 PM

Like other conservatives here have said, Home Depot was perfectly entitled to fire the guy. He had decided to make an issue of his patriotism and Christianity and was trying to push their buttons. Home Depot had allowed him to wear his non-standard issue flag pin for quite a while. Then he started bringing his bible to work and finally went too far.

But having said that, like Smiling Bandit, I believe in tolerance when it comes to religious matters. I favor unfettered display of Christmas scenes and whatever religious symbolism people of various other religions want to display. I think people should be free to believe however they want, including atheism, without sanction, scorn or intimidation from people with other beliefs.

I also think it's ridiculous that things in this country have degenerated to the point where a store like Home Depot feels it has to suppress the mere mention of God for fear of "offending" someone. People need to be more tolerant of other people's freedoms and less eager to take offense when someone's beliefs are different than theirs. Somehow it has gotten to be the case (well, not actually 'somehow,' but that's a subject for another thread) that many people have come to feel we have a virtual Constitutional right not to be offended. Again, it's ridiculous. People think differently than you do. Get over it.

Oakminster

10-29-2009, 03:33 PM

I also think it's ridiculous that things in this country have degenerated to the point where a store like Home Depot feels it has to suppress the mere mention of God for fear of "offending" someone.

That isn't what they're doing. They are suppressing any non-company provided accessories to the work uniform. Doesn't matter if the button says "Yay Jesus" or "Fuck the Draft*". If Home Depot didn't provide it, nobody gets to wear it on the work uniform.

*Shout out to all the 1Ls that will be reading Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) this semester or next.

Revenant Threshold

10-29-2009, 03:39 PM

I also think it's ridiculous that things in this country have degenerated to the point where a store like Home Depot feels it has to suppress the mere mention of God for fear of "offending" someone. People need to be more tolerant of other people's freedoms and less eager to take offense when someone's beliefs are different than theirs. Somehow it has gotten to be the case (well, not actually 'somehow,' but that's a subject for another thread) that many people have come to feel we have a virtual Constitutional right not to be offended. Again, it's ridiculous. People think differently than you do. Get over it. That seems illogical. Isn't it possible that people might be offended by not allowing people to wear such buttons? I mean, you seem to be, or at least feel that it is worthy of ridicule. If trying to avoid causing offense were the goal, banning a symbol of support for the majority religion of the country seems far more likely to cause offense than does allowing it.

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 03:44 PM

That isn't what they're doing. They are suppressing any non-company provided accessories to the work uniform. Doesn't matter if the button says "Yay Jesus" or "Fuck the Draft*". If Home Depot didn't provide it, nobody gets to wear it on the work uniform.The account I read yesterday said that he'd been allowed to wear his own flag pin for some time. I don't recall whether that was months or years, but HD had apparently not made an issue of it until he started bringing his bible to work.

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 03:51 PM

That seems illogical. Isn't it possible that people might be offended by not allowing people to wear such buttons? I mean, you seem to be, or at least feel that it is worthy of ridicule. If trying to avoid causing offense were the goal, banning a symbol of support for the majority religion of the country seems far more likely to cause offense than does allowing it.No, an activist minority can achieve influence far beyond its numbers. So many anti-Christian whinebags have raised such a ruckus here over Christianity and its imagery (while simultaneously defending the rights of minority religions) that Christians have become used to that kind of intolerance and discrimination. In fact, I'd say they expect it. There is also the matter of complacency, which is typical when you have a majority. So many Christians simply don't get that cranked up about it because they don't feel they have anything to prove.

And then there's also the very likely fact that Home Depot never expected the issue to become publicly known, much less on a national basis. No doubt many more Christians are offended now than would have been had no one known about it in the first place.

Revenant Threshold

10-29-2009, 04:01 PM

No, an activist minority can achieve influence far beyond its numbers. So many anti-Christian whinebags have raised such a ruckus here over Christianity and its imagery (while simultaneously defending the rights of minority religions) that Christians have become used to that kind of intolerance and discrimination. In fact, I'd say they expect it. There is also the matter of complacency, which is typical when you have a majority. So many Christians simply don't get that cranked up about it because they don't feel they have anything to prove.

And then there's also the very likely fact that Home Depot never expected the issue to become publicly known, much less on a national basis. No doubt many more Christians are offended now than would have been had no one known about it in the first place. Again, that seems illogical. By the very standards that letting this sort thing be known changes the response, Home Depot could simply let it be known widely and publically that they had no intention of stopping people from wearing badges such as those of the OP. Make it known that there are such activist minorities attempting to change things, thus pricking the complacency, and happily announcing on a national basis that they stand for the majority. As you say, just as it now may offend many more Christians because they have now heard of it, by making it known themselves and taking the opposite stance, they could, by your argument, reap great goodwill towards them.

StusBlues

10-29-2009, 04:05 PM

Sort of like the "lefties" boycotting Glen Beck's advertisers for his egregious use of the first amendment?

Pretty much. Beck's got a right to say what he thinks. Fox has a right to put him on the air. I've got a right to have nothing to do with the lying pieces of shit. Enough people take my attitude, Beck goes away.

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 04:36 PM

Again, that seems illogical. By the very standards that letting this sort thing be known changes the response, Home Depot could simply let it be known widely and publically that they had no intention of stopping people from wearing badges such as those of the OP. Make it known that there are such activist minorities attempting to change things, thus pricking the complacency, and happily announcing on a national basis that they stand for the majority. As you say, just as it now may offend many more Christians because they have now heard of it, by making it known themselves and taking the opposite stance, they could, by your argument, reap great goodwill towards them.Doesn't matter. Political correctness rules all in this country now, and it has for some time. Most businesses these days would rather risk offending 100 Christians that they would one atheist or Jew or Muslim, and for the reasons I just mentioned. But of course what they try to do is both, which results in such inanity as Target one year trying to advertise "Holiday" trees instead of Christmas trees. :rolleyes:

Revenant Threshold

10-29-2009, 04:46 PM

Doesn't matter. Political correctness rules all in this country now, and it has for some time. Most businesses these days would rather risk offending 100 Christians that they would one atheist or Jew or Muslim, and for the reasons I just mentioned. But of course what they try to do is both, which results in such inanity as Target one year trying to advertise "Holiday" trees instead of Christmas trees. :rolleyes: I honestly can't see any company being affected to such an extent in direct opposition to making profit - unless the company in question is designed with that affect in mind. Let alone most businesses working under this model. I mean, if most businesses around you are offending the vast majority of the country, and only courting the the money of some small percentage of the nation - then any company which started up to court to those Christians would make vast amounts of money. It's just good business sense to go for 100 potential customers than it is one (assuming similar wealth levels).

Really, I have to doubt that the majority of businesses in the US are prepared to go after 1/100th of the possible business they could do. Given that your reasons provide for a very simple way of doing so, I just can't see how you can assume this is the case. It's simple - here's a big pot of money. Here's a coin. Which would your company prefer? And that's even just assuming they cannot have both. I think you have considerably less respect for the average person than I do.

Sam Stone

10-29-2009, 04:51 PM

I don't think you can necessarily lay a charge of political correctness on them. There are a lot of issues here. For one thing, it's a branding matter. Home Depot wants their people to wear a certain uniform, and it's part of their brand image. They don't want it watered down.

It's also a management issue. One of the reasons for uniforms is to avoid all of the hassle around dress codes and managers having to waste time explaining what is and isn't acceptable for the work place.

It could also be a safety issue. Home Depot employees work around machinery, climb high ladders, carry odd objects, and in general do things where it's useful to keep buttons, ties, and other loose articles properly stowed.

Finally, if they allow this guy's button, then what happens if some smart alec comes in the next day with a 'God is Dead' button? And if they say he can't wear that, and he says, "Hey, I'm an athiest and I have to stare at that God button every day, so why can't I express myself?"

These are among the many reasons why a lot of stores have a uniform policy. They might look the other way for a tiny little pin or something, but if you try to turn your uniform into a walking billboard for your personal beliefs, expect to get called on it.

I have no sympathy for the guy with the religious button. He's at work. He has to live by the rules of the workplace. And they aren't unreasonable rules, either.

I've got no problem with Christianity whatsoever, and I think a lot of anti-Christian rhetoric is offensive and that a lot of people go too far in trying to keep religious citizens from expressing themselves in quasi-governmental settings like school convocations. But if I were this guy's manager, I'd have fired him too.

R. P. McMurphy

10-29-2009, 04:57 PM

Geez, and just last week the guy's boss was ragging on him for not wearing enough "flair".

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 05:02 PM

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 05:16 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 05:21 PM

What would be an example of a "pro-Christian policy?"

Sateryn76

10-29-2009, 05:25 PM

Cite?

Christians are the vast majority. Who's persecuting them? Who's stopping you from engaging in any iota of practice or expression?Who's fettering your Christmas displays? What the hell are you talking about? Back these allegations up.

I can't believe I'm with Dio on something. I think the Earth is going to end soon....

But, yes, SA, please explain where all of this anti-Christian stuff takes place. Open a thread about it if you wish. No snark - I'm really quite interested to see specific examples of things that make Christians feel oppressed.

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 05:27 PM

According to Fox News, it's oppressive to tell a Christian "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Sam Stone

10-29-2009, 05:28 PM

50% off crosses every easter!

Lumber yard organized in convenient ark-building product sections.

Interlocking patio bricks designed to make trumpet-proof walls.

Free pile of ashes with every sack cloth purchased.

Free plastic Jesus with any carpenter's tool purchased.

New storage baskets sized to hold 40 loaves of bread.

New store slogan: "Home Depot - let us help shoulder your burden, brother."

Revenant Threshold

10-29-2009, 05:29 PM

But, yes, SA, please explain where all of this anti-Christian stuff takes place. Open a thread about it if you wish. No snark - I'm really quite interested to see specific examples of things that make Christians feel oppressed. To be fair, SA hasn't in this instance claimed oppression of Christians, as far as I can tell. Intolerance, yes, and discrimination, which I don't see where he's getting from if he's referring to this specific instance as being of the type, but not oppression, per se.

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 05:54 PM

He used the words "intolerance and discrimination." What are some specific instances of "intolerance and discrimination" against Christians, and who's doing the discriminating

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 06:05 PM

But, yes, SA, please explain where all of this anti-Christian stuff takes place. Open a thread about it if you wish. No snark - I'm really quite interested to see specific examples of things that make Christians feel oppressed. No specific person or persons in mind. But there are plenty of people both out in society and here on the Dope who object quite a bit to Christmas imagery and what they view as the imposition of it upon everyone else. It's not for nothing, after all, that Target decided two or three years ago to advertise their Christmas trees as Holiday trees. And I've seen sentiments expressed around here to the effect that the only proper place for Christmas imagery and decoration is inside people's houses. Sorry, no cite. (If for no other reason than we have a particularly inadequate search function here and the key words would be too common to do any good.) I would point out though that in addition to Target's attempts to rename Christmas trees to something more palatable to non-believers, Bill O'Reilly has gotten quite a lot of milage out of what he has portrayed as the "war on Christmas." I don't care enough about it right now to open a thread, but if you really want to know more about this issue you should be able to Google plenty of information about it online.According to Fox News, it's oppressive to tell a Christian "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." I'm not sure about Fox's take on it, but I only find "Happy Holidays" offensive when it's the deliberate result of a person's saying it as a way to avoid saying Christmas for some political or philosophical reason, or because they've been told not to say "Merry Christmas" by their employer. To me, the mere fact that this has become an issue is evidence enough of the movement to suppress Christmas decorations and imagery. Nobody thought twice about either phrase at the time It's A Wonderful Life was released, so it's clear that things have changed in the meantime.

To be fair, SA hasn't in this instance claimed oppression of Christians, as far as I can tell. Intolerance, yes, and discrimination, which I don't see where he's getting from if he's referring to this specific instance as being of the type, but not oppression, per se. That's right. I'm not claiming Christianity is being oppressed per se, though I most definitely do think efforts are afoot to suppress it, and the reasons are twofold: One, to avoid "offending" non-believers; and two, to make it seem less pervasive throughout society.

Now, having said that, I'm not interested in getting into a heated debate on the issue. We haven't even cleared Halloween yet and Thanksgiving is still a month away. I'm sure there will be plenty of argument about it as it approaches, just like there has been at Christmas time the last several years.

Sateryn76

10-29-2009, 06:21 PM

Starving Artist

10-29-2009, 06:37 PM

I just want to say that I find it laughable that Christians still claim some kind of ownership in Christmas. Sure, it's "Jesus' birthday" to them, but it is celebrated by all sorts of people, and is joined by celebrations of all sorts of other beliefs.

It's just a winter solstice celebration, for family and warmth and happiness.Are you kidding me? That's like saying you find it laughable that Christians claim ownership of Easter. The fact that it has been co-opted into a sort of generic, secular winter holiday doesn't remove or replace its original meaning, or how it came to be named Christmas in the first place.

And besides, historically there has been no need to 'claim' it until recently when other people started trying to suppress it or remove it from public view.

Bryan Ekers

10-29-2009, 06:37 PM

I don't know where you live, but . . . is Home Depot your government?

Ain't you never heard of the Depot of Home Security?

Bryan Ekers

10-29-2009, 06:39 PM

Are you kidding me? That's like saying you find it laughable that Christians claim ownership of Easter. The fact that it has been co-opted into a sort of generic, secular winter holiday doesn't remove or replace its original meaning

I thought celebration of the solstice was its original meaning. It was Christians who co-opted it first, if we're to take co-opting into account.

Airman Doors, USAF

10-29-2009, 06:41 PM

I just want to say that I find it laughable that Christians still claim some kind of ownership in Christmas. Sure, it's "Jesus' birthday" to them, but it is celebrated by all sorts of people, and is joined by celebrations of all sorts of other beliefs.

It's just a winter solstice celebration, for family and warmth and happiness.

The root word of Christmas is "Christ". By that simple criteria alone Christians have the exclusive right to claim ownership of Christmas.

I don't think you meant to say what you said in quite the way you said it.

Revenant Threshold

10-29-2009, 06:51 PM

The root word of Christmas is "Christ". By that simple criteria alone Christians have the exclusive right to claim ownership of Christmas. Exclusive seems to be going too far the other way. It doesn't seem reasonable to claim either that Christmas is entirely without or entirely within the ownership of Christians.

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 07:01 PM

No specific person or persons in mind. But there are plenty of people both out in society and here on the Dope who object quite a bit to Christmas imagery and what they view as the imposition of it upon everyone else.
Cite? I haven't seen this. Even if it were true, it doesn't infringe on your rights. You don't have a right for people to like your religious expression.
It's not for nothing, after all, that Target decided two or three years ago to advertise their Christmas trees as Holiday trees.
This is your best example of Christian persecution? That target markets "Holiday Trees?"
And I've seen sentiments expressed around here to the effect that the only proper place for Christmas imagery and decoration is inside people's houses.
I haven't seen it, and I think you're imagining things, but even if that were true, it wouldn't be an example of Christians being persecuted and discriminated against. It doesn't stop you from being able to do anything. You don't have a right for people to like your religious expression.
Sorry, no cite. (If for no other reason than we have a particularly inadequate search function here and the key words would be too common to do any good.)
You wouldn't find anything regardless. I read every religious thread and every "War on Christmas" thread. I've never seen anyone say that Christmas inagery should only be expressed in people's homes.
I would point out though that in addition to Target's attempts to rename Christmas trees to something more palatable to non-believers
Actually they did it in order to sell more trees, not to be "more palatable." The marketing idea is not to limit the use of the product to Christian celebrations, but to make it more generic. No one gives a shit if stores market "Christmas trees," or say "Merry Christmas." There aren't any "nonbelievers" com[laining about it. Stores are simply trying not to narrow their customer base. the only people putting pressure on these stores are butthurt, arm band Christians who can't stand it that a store has a "Holiday sale" instead of a "Christmas sale."
Bill O'Reilly has gotten quite a lot of milage out of what he has portrayed as the "war on Christmas."
Yes, Bill O'Reilly is the leader of this bullshit, and he's completely full of shit.
I don't care enough about it right now to open a thread, but if you really want to know more about this issue you should be able to Google plenty of information about it online.
I know quite a bit about it. That's why I know it's bullshit, and why I know that you can't back up any allegations about Christians being victimized.
I'm not sure about Fox's take on it, but I only find "Happy Holidays" offensive when it's the deliberate result of a person's saying it as a way to avoid saying Christmas for some political or philosophical reason, or because they've been told not to say "Merry Christmas" by their employer.
Bill O'Reilly has specifically said that saying "Happy Holidays" to a Christian is "offensive."

Also, why are you offended if somebody doesn't want to say "Christmas?" How does that hurt you?
the mere fact that this has become an issue is evidence enough of the movement to suppress Christmas decorations and imagery.
This is an absolutely asinine statement. That's like saying the fact that some people are afraid of Jews is evidence that Jews are conspiring against them.

There is no movement to suppress Christian imagery. It doesn't exist. Morons like Bill O'Reilly are making it up. Witness your own inability to actually cite a single example.
Nobody thought twice about either phrase at the time It's A Wonderful Life was released, so it's clear that things have changed in the meantime.
Nobody thinks twice about it now. The only difference is that nobody thought they were being oppressed back then if somebody told them "Happy Holidays."

Christmas movies still get shit out by the boatload, by the way. Name a holiday from any other religion that gets as much lavish adoration in the commercial and media arenas as Chjristmas does.
That's right. I'm not claiming Christianity is being oppressed per se, though I most definitely do think efforts are afoot to suppress it
Show some examples (and you misused the phrase per se).
and the reasons are twofold: One, to avoid "offending" non-believers; and two, to make it seem less pervasive throughout society.
That's quite a vivid imagination you have there. It doesn't have the slightest basis in reality, though.

elfkin477

10-29-2009, 07:04 PM

I'm both conservative and Christian, but I can't really get behind this guy...we're not supposed to make a showy display of religion:

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Matthew 6: 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Airman Doors, USAF

10-29-2009, 07:06 PM

Exclusive seems to be going too far the other way. It doesn't seem reasonable to claim either that Christmas is entirely without or entirely within the ownership of Christians.

No, you misunderstand. Anything can be on December 25th. Christmas happens to fall on that date, but that does not mean that the religious holiday of Christmas has the exclusive right to be celebrated on that day. Don't conflate the date with the celebration.

What other group has an interest in "Christmas" but "Christians"? Take my family, for example. For my wife, Christmas is nothing more than another day. For me, Yom Kippur is nothing more than another day. It would be silly for us to attempt to claim something that we have no vested interest in.

So, how did this become about Christmas, anyway?

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 07:08 PM

The root word of Christmas is "Christ". By that simple criteria alone Christians have the exclusive right to claim ownership of Christmas.

I don't think you meant to say what you said in quite the way you said it.
This is fatuous. For one thing, it was "Saturnalia" before it was Christmas. For another thing, that's like saying "thursday" comes from "Thor's Day," therefore only Thor worshippers have exclusive ownership of thursdays.

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 07:12 PM

Are you kidding me? That's like saying you find it laughable that Christians claim ownership of Easter. The fact that it has been co-opted into a sort of generic, secular winter holiday doesn't remove or replace its original meaning, or how it came to be named Christmas in the first place.
It's original meaning was as a Pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Christans coopted the holiday because pagans were celebrating it anyway.

Easter is named after a pagan goddess, by the way.

Diogenes the Cynic

10-29-2009, 07:16 PM

No, you misunderstand. Anything can be on December 25th. Christmas happens to fall on that date
Christmas doesn't just "happen" to fall on that date. The celebration existed before Christianity. Christians just tried to make a pagan celebration into a Christian one. They're certainly allowed to interpret and celebrate the Saturnalia however they want, but they have no special ownership of it.

gonzomax

10-29-2009, 07:16 PM

It was a business decision. They want to sell to everybody. If an employee bothers some customers with his button ,they may not come back. The company6 should not allow it. It is not anti religious. it is pro business.

Boyo Jim

10-29-2009, 07:17 PM

...What would be my "righty" reaction?...

Blowin' up Home Depot real good? :p

Euphonious Polemic

10-29-2009, 07:25 PM

But guys, efforts are afoot to suppress Christianity! Efforts are afoot!

Efforts! By .... some people.. and they're afoot!

What more possible proof could you need?

Revenant Threshold

10-29-2009, 07:26 PM

No, you misunderstand. Anything can be on December 25th. Christmas happens to fall on that date, but that does not mean that the religious holiday of Christmas has the exclusive right to be celebrated on that day. Don't conflate the date with the celebration.

What other group has an interest in "Christmas" but "Christians"? Take my family, for example. For my wife, Christmas is nothing more than another day. For me, Yom Kippur is nothing more than another day. It would be silly for us to attempt to claim something that we have no vested interest in. I'm not confusing Christmas with December 25th. Take my family; we exchange presents, we eat a Christmas dinner, we see relatives and friends. Already plans are in motion for what's to happen this coming Christmas. Christmas holds considerable interest for me and my family. Yet, none of us are Christians. So, how did this become about Christmas, anyway? Hey, i'm one of those people that grumbles about places having their decorations up this relatively early. Don't blame me. ;)

kaylasdad99

10-29-2009, 07:53 PM

just curious to know which one of the republican party's tenets gets thrown out the window first.Any other concerns of fatuousness (fatuity?) aside (wrt the "debate" here), I'd like to congratulate the OP for using the term "tenets", rather than the depressingly ubiquitous "tenants".

Chronos

10-29-2009, 08:08 PM

There is a real war on Christmas, and it's being waged by precisely those people who claim to be standing in defense. Think of all those people who bemoan the commercialization and secularization of Christmas: If it's secular for them, that's their own fault. It doesn't stop me from going to Christmas church services, and getting together with family and friends, and singing religious Christmas songs, or any of the rest of it. I never complain about Christmas being secularized, because I've chosen not to secularize it.

Colophon

10-29-2009, 08:33 PM

"I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country."

I love stupid quotes like this. Yup, every patriotic American should wear a button-badge to work.

R. P. McMurphy

10-29-2009, 10:20 PM

It sounds like everyone is over-thinking this thing. Based on what has been reported, the guy was a total PITA. He was probably one of those employees that was a cancer in the workplace and they really, really wanted to get rid of him so they could go about their business and try to establish a harmonious workplace. The managers were probably looking for anything to get rid of this worthless, self absorbed, sanctimonious POS. When he started pounding his Bible the other employees were probably begging their bosses to can this guy's sorry ass so they could get on with their jobs and not have to be subjected to his insufferable annoyances.

Therefore, the managers finally pulled the trigger on this asshole. It's not about Home Depot, discrimination, anti-Christianity, or any other trumped up agenda. They got rid of the idiot for everyone's benefit. The Home Depot store will be a better place without him. End of story.