His employer should be judging his work performance and character based on what they see at work.
They do have a right to fire him for whatever reason they want. I'm not claiming that. I just don't think it's right for them to fire him for anything beyond his work performance.
I don't think it's right for an employer to judge someone's character based on one act. What if this guy is a perfectly nice person and good worker at every other time (every day) his employer sees him and the only time he's seen him be an @ss is on this Youtube video? Why should the employer make a judgement on this man's character based on this one negative act rather than the cumulative history of all the positive acts the employer has actually witnessed.
But actually, I don't think that's even relevant. I think people should be allowed to continue at their jobs or be fired based on their work performance not on what they're doing in every other minute of their lives.
Jeeze! Talk about giving your blood, sweat and tears to the job! That's nothing. This would be your whole life.
Also, for what it's worth, I believe it's the law in AZ that food establishments must offer free water to anyone who comes in and asks for it.
Slightly off-topic: I see plenty of people go out to fast food and much nicer restaurants, and they always order only water to drink. Personally, I think that's taking advantage of a business, so I always order something like iced tea, or lemonade, or a beer, etc. It's been touted here and at plenty of other frugal-type sites that if you and all of your dining companions just order water that that is a smart thing to do. Well, yes, it's cheaper, but it's a restaurant not a public park bench.
Drinks are profitable and if you want to see them stay in business, order something to drink besides water.
Finally, agree with others that it's never right to harass a service worker for something their CEO/Bd of Directors said or did. At the same time, it's everyone's right to decline to patronize establishments that are actively participating in discrimination, directly or indirectly.
But since I do order my fair share of glasses of wine at nice restaurants I'm doing my part.
Today I did a rarity, went out for lunch. I go out to lunch probably 3 times annually. I went to a tea room and ordered--water! But it wasn't at the lunch rush, it was at 2 pm, so I don't think they minded me doing that.
I always order water also. It's what I drink at home, it's what I prefer. The cost doesn't even enter my mind because it's what I want.
I think him being at such a high level in the company does change things. Look if you were arguing it wasn't fair a data entry person got fired for a Facebook post or a youtube video or something, I'd agree. But when you are management in corporate America, and even mores so *SENIOR* management, I think there is a *cultural* expectation that at that point your public behavior represents the company. It's just part of corporate culture. And frankly I'm very careful what gets on there online under my real name (under an alias I'm more free) and I'm just an employee, but it's absolutely necessary to consider what future employers might see out there etc..I don't think it's right for an employer to judge someone's character based on one act. What if this guy is a perfectly nice person and good worker at every other time (every day) his employer sees him and the only time he's seen him be an @ss is on this Youtube video?
For a senior management person to be so dense is just clueless .... (on so many levels of course - clueless about those in lower income brackets like those who work fast food and clueless about even playing the part of the senior executive in his income bracket, just clueless all around).
Remember to always keep a positive platitude
There are no Chic-Fil-A's around this part of the country and I've never actually had their food. I hear its pretty good. Aside from that I think its great that...
A business has the fortitude to stand up for their values. Even if they don't reflect my values I can appreciate people who firmly believe they are doing the right thing and then stand up for that.
People come out to support that business.
People come out to protest that business.
The dialog surrounding gay marriage is still open.
It's pretty amazing to have all that centered around a chicken sandwich. America, what a country!
Ive never been to a Chick-Fil-A. But I think I'll swing by today and try one of there sandwich's out. My understanding is that all this is over a statement made in a interview simply stating an owners belief's. That was the same as Obama's a few months ago. There was no uproar then, why now.
I wonder if this will end up actually helping their business. They sure got a lot of free publicity.
*sadly, some on this thread wasted no time in trying to 'connect' this to Obama, oddly enough, and democrats. Ideologues do get tiresome in their constant swing around into the party line no matter what the discussion is about. It is election time, isn't it ((sigh))
The question isn't this guys freedom of speech. He is free, obviously, to say whatever he wants, and believe whatever he wants. The question is discrimination. Digging further into the story we find that the Ill. Atty. general has been in negotiation with this company for quite a while. Ill has on it's books anti-discrimination laws, and apparently this owner has been hedging on his chains policy on hiring or even serving gays. This is why this has gone public. Knee jerk reactions, on both sides, has missed the point entirely. Employment laws are employment laws, and no one, no matter how 'righteous or religious' they are can not simply ignore them. He is free to discriminate against gays and Ill. is free to deny him business if he chooses to do so. It's simply a matter of law. And everyone is free to either eat thee of not, based on whatever criteria they choose. One persons choice is not more 'righteous or holy or touchy feelie' than anyone elses, and everyone is expressing their free speech.