Heterosexuals become victims of homosexual thought police.Woman sues after she was fired for saying being 'gay' is not same as being black.
An African-American woman is suing the university where she worked for firing her over a privately written newspaper commentary expressing her Christian views on homosexuality.
Crystal Dixon, the former associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo, was fired in May after she objected to an opinion article in the Toledo Free Press that compared striving for "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of black Americans.
Dixon responded with a Free Press editorial of her own, written not in her capacity as a university employee but as a private citizen.
"As a Black woman," Dixon wrote, "I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."
University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs immediately suspended Dixon and condemned her statements. Within days, Dixon was fired.
Now, with the help of the Thomas More Law Center, a not-for-profit law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, Dixon has today filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court claiming violations of her constitutional rights of free speech.
"Crystal Dixon has a constitutional right to privately express her personal opinions," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, in a statement.
"This particular opinion represents the view of a majority of Christian Americans," Thompson continued. "Essentially she was fired for being a Christian."
CNulan said...
Firing this sister for being a Christian is as wrong as firing a homosexual for being a faggot.She didn't get fired for being a Christian.
She got fired for publicly stating that her cherished superstitions and bias are in direct conflict with her professional responsibilities as a human resources avp at an institution which does not share her views or practice her bigotry - as a matter of policy.
Denmark Vesey said ...
"She got fired for publicly stating" CNuWe can stop there bra.
Everything after that is some Patriot Act NWO Flouride-In-The Water Police State in Gay Face tyrannical bullshit.
Fascists once disguised as Conservative Christians have repackaged themselves Holier Than Thou Homosexuals and are attacking real Christians for daring to state their beliefs in public.
Equating a sexual perversion with the black experience is necessary to validate the claim of Gay Group Entitlement. A person's rights should be solely based on their humanity and their citizenship - not their race or sexual impulse.
Just as blacks were duped into playing the foot soldiers in the culture war that destroyed WASP establishment, homosexuals are being used as pawns to attack and destroy religious institutions.
The Secular Jihadists of the NWO tolerate no competition.
Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...
12 06 08
What a good set of discussions. I actually disagree with Craig and think what RJ says makes the most sense from a legal perspective, but since I'm no legal expert that is surely subjective;)
As much as I feel that gays have the right to marry in CA due to our state Constitution and precedent, I havta draw the line somewhere. She was clearly fired by the thought police. I hate this type of intolerance that the gay lobby puts forth. They are just as intolerant of people as Craig's 'bibtards'!
The bottom line is that in a pluralistic society, people are different. They should be able to express themselves so long as their actions don't harm others. One issue that hasn't been brought up is how the internet changes the notion of folks 'privately expressing their opinions'. If someone puts their opinion on a website and the public can view it, is the opinion private anymore?
I don't know what her employment contract looks like, but I do think its a cheap shot to offer her another position then fire her for not taking it. We all know in our hearts that she was assasinated in character by the PC Mafia.
I am all for equality before the LAW, but this is ridiculous! Pretty soon, anyone who is part of a religious organization will be discriminated against on the job and the self same arguments that gays used to get married will be used to preserve religious freedom.
This is a screwed up case.
And Fisher was right as well. No gay blogger, white or otherwise, has EVER addressed my question nor his that white gays benefitted from the racist institutions in this country.
Craig, I understand the spirit of the term 'bibtard' but when you throw it out there, don't forget that many bibtards of the last century were our allies against slavery. Where were the gay abolitionists who were 'out' at the time?
27 comments:
Ohio is an employment at will state. Dollars to donuts, Ms. Bib-tard violated the university's policy on non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
For damned sure she rubbed some of her higher-ups entirely the wrong way with those comments...,
Yeah. I see that link CNu. Dem dykes look angry.
What the perverts presented to you NeoLibs packaged in cute little cliches about "equality" and "choice" and "preference" ... turned out to be power grab in the Group Identity culture war.
Jews
Gays
Wasps
Asians
White Ethnics
Plantation Negros / Hispanics /
Black women
Black Men
Muslims
Black folks slippin into last place.
Claim her for yourself magne.
Bib-tard trumps any identity traits we might otherwise share. She was fired for saying stupid stuff in public.
Ahhhhhh ... Come now CNu.
Of all people. You are the last one I would expect to pull some Mike Fisher shit and stick to an argument for the sake of an argument.
Saying homosexual behavior and the black experience are not the same - is not nearly as stupid as one hairy ass man sticking his Johnson in the ass of another man.
Firing this sister for being a Christian is as wrong as firing a homosexual for being a faggot.
Firing this sister for being a Christian is as wrong as firing a homosexual for being a faggot.
She didn't get fired for being a Christian.
She got fired for publicly stating that her cherished superstitions and bias are in direct conflict with her professional responsibilities as a human resources avp at an institution which does not share her views or practice her bigotry - as a matter of policy.
The bib-tards done it...,
Voters' economic status and religious convictions played a greater role than race and age in determining whether they supported the Nov. 4 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California, a new poll shows.
The ban drew its strongest support from both evangelical Christians and voters who didn't attend college, according to results released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.
Age and race, meanwhile, were not as strong factors as assumed. According to the poll, 56 percent of voters over age 55 and 57 percent of nonwhite voters cast a yes ballot for the gay marriage ban.
People who identified themselves as practicing Christians were highly likely to support the constitutional amendment, with 85 percent of evangelical Christians, 66 percent of Protestants and 60 percent of Roman Catholics favoring it.
The poll also showed that the measure got strong backing from voters who did not attend college (69 percent), voters who earned less than $40,000 a year (63 percent) and Latinos (61 percent).
She's going to win and win big!!!
I'll bet you a paypal dollar RJ, that she's just a goner and will quickly fade into even greater obscurity than at present.
Even as an HR "professional", presumably privy to where all the skeleton bones are buried, she has nothing to work with that won't prove self-incriminating.
Just as blacks were duped into playing the foot soldiers in the culture war that destroyed WASP establishment, homosexuals are being used as pawns to attack and destroy religious institutions.
You so funny....,
What on earth leads you to imagine that the WASP establishment is anything but well and thriving?
What on earth leads you to imagine that the old-order churches are under attack, given that it's mormons, evangelicals, and some catholics who're catching it for their organized position on Prop 8?
"What on earth leads you to imagine that the WASP establishment is anything but well and thriving?" CNu
1) Multi-trillion dollar WASP debt.
2) Zionist hegemony.
3) WASP is now WASS - "Multi-Cultural Gender Bender Secularism".
"What on earth leads you to imagine that the old-order churches are under attack," CNu
The removal of God from public life, the organized media attack on Catholic priests, The False Flag of Vatican II, the organized war on all things Islam for starters.
I dont know CNu. I'll take that bet. I think you are mis-reading the true public sentiment on this issue. Moreoever, federal law favors this woman's position, i.e., that she has th freedom to say whatever the hell she wants and the freedom to express the tenants of her religion without fear of employment-based retaliation.
That university will have the burden of establishing that whatever thing they claim caused this woman's termination was not just a pre-text. That will be hard sell, in light of what I'd bet a pay dollar is a long tenure with the university and a glowing performance record. Hell, you dont get to be AVP of anything without a glowing record. Doubt that a jury of folks (who secretly hold no ill-will toward homosexuals but likely would like to hear far less about the endeavor) will believe that all of sudden this woman just started mucking up the university's HR policy. Didnt have anything to do with her public letter. Nope. Not one thing.
Come on, Cnu. Even you dont believe that.
Did she say that she treated homosexuals differently when it came to her HR job?
If she didn't say that and there is no proof that she did that, then she got fired for having traditional Christian beliefs.
It ain't complicated. If you are a traditional Christian, you believe homosexuality is a sin and you believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a choice.
That is not the same as being black.
It ain't complicated. If you are a traditional Christian, you believe homosexuality is a sin and you believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a choice.
That is not the same as being black.
If her superstitions and stated adherence to the same are out of sync with documented UofT policy, then she's simply fired on those grounds and being that Ohio is an employ at will state, she HAS no recourse. Her suit won't be heard by the state, the EEOC, or anyone else adjudicating such matters.
Not true Cnu. An at will policy is not a get out of jail free card. It will certainly be one of the university's defenses, but in a case like this, it wont end or avoid litigation. It will actually just make shit more complicated. Notwithstanding an at-will employment clause, an employer (particularly one that receives federal monies), cannot violate federal law in its employment practices. If the at-will clause operated as categorically as you seem to think it does, there would no such thing as labor and employment law or labor and employment lawyers, the EEOC or anything else.
The university need only have a policy restricting public commentary to the communications or public affairs officer, or, a policy addressing communications which could be negatively construed - in order to have grounds. As these types of employee behaviour policies are fairly common place, she'll be ground into dust before everything is said and done, and in the process, she will have obviated all future possibilities of employment in that capacity within academia.
Good thing she has her little Mary Kay and bible-buddy hustles going on. She's gonna need them.
http://www.crystaldixon.com/
Thanks in advance for donating a dollar to the Cnu cause RJ. It's very greatly appreciated.
This is over with before it's even begun.....,
From the Toledo Blade article -
Ms. Stecker also said she's glad Dr. Jacobs had the courage to take decisive action to support diversity at UT.
They fired a woman for speaking an opinion that diverged from "university policy" and that is called supporting diversity.
Only in the Fuzzy Orwellian la la land these PC Police Squads inhabit can that kind of bullshit fly.
over before its begun?
Based on some news story in an Ohio paper. Which raised each of the points I raised above, BTW.
I'm surprised Cnu. That's awfully average-minded of you.
Who's surprised that the university played the "it effects your performance" card. That's legal 101. [BTW, That's what swayed you? They do say there's no accounting for the perspectives of american jurors.]
CNu, I cant hang on most of that other stuff you write about, but on this, I have no choice but to tell you to step your legal game up.
Not only was there no opportunity for this woman to demonstrate that she could not carry out the functions of her job since she was placed on leave the very day the piece was printed, what exactly did she say that is so "offensive" to the LGBT community? Granted I didnt read her submission, but the proposition that being black aint the same as being gay is only offensive if one has an interest in being the current persecuted group de jure. Some say the LGBT community does. Since when, in a climate that purportedly exhaults DIVERSITY, is there a problem is pointing out that folks are different. [oh, the irony (read assbackwardness) of political correctness].
Besides all of the above, you are sorely missing the "settlement is cheaper" undercurrent to this story which makes my initial statement 1000% true.
I'll repeat it. This woman will win and win big.
I'm surprised Cnu. That's awfully average-minded of you
roflmao!!
RJ,
While I would gladly defer to your legal acumen in almost any other circumstance, I served for 6 years as an EEO Counselor in the Treasury Dept. and one of my best friends is the former Chairman of the EEOC.
In my admittedly limited experience in this sphere, she will not have exhausted her administrative and EEOC complaints before this gets bounced.
The EEOC is certainly not going to bring suit on her behalf, and given the University's LGBT-friendly diversity policy - her comments are absolutely at cross purposes with that policy taken in consideration of the office she formerly occupied.
The blade article also mentions a prior "personality conflict" in which she was embroiled with the Chancellor. She's a goner. The University is going to defend its actions to the hilt and there won't be any settlement.
First off, no you didnt pull the "my best friend is a..."
Of course, there is a requirement that she exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit, but that's a procedural issue, my comments pre-supposed that she fulfilled these obligations and spoke to the substance of her claim.
In my experience with EEOC claims, and DFEH claims (here in Cali at the state level), the agencies dont delve much into the substance, but instead ceremoniously suspend matters into the abyss of administrative investigation so as to justify the agency's existence and then send cases on their way to the litigation that everybody should have expected all along.
Even with the admittedly few facts I am aware of, it would be my opinion that this woman will clear any evidentiary hurdle imposed by the federal agency. Public policy favors this woman's right to her day in court. Moreover, there is a reasonable (and damn good) argument that this woman was fired in violation of her religious freedoms. Personally, I think the timing of her dismissal is the most damning evidence in this regard. Bottom line, she's going to get to file her case.
And as for settlement, the university has no say so in whether this matter will be settled. They can make public statements to make you think they do, but settlement in instances where there is insurance coverage, is entered into (or not) at the full and sole discretion of the insurance carrier.
The university dont have shit to say on the matter anywhere but on the stage of public opinion. [FYI, I'm an insurance defense attorney]
Well now..., there are several mitigating factors at work here.
1. The University offered to transfer her to another position instead of the Interim AVP HR position she occupied, and she refused. So they already attempted to deal with her in good faith.
2. Insurance companies settle all the time, makes no difference as to whether the institution continues to pursue the matter.
Case in point with our royal ass-clown of a mayor here in KC. Hopefully, you haven't taken note of this pitiful saga, but he and his wife and the city are the subjects of a racial discrimination /sexual harrassment lawsuit being brought by a former employee. The mayor's insurance company already settled with the plaintiff in this case for $45 grand, but with no bearing on the lawsuits being brought in the matter, as witnesses for both sides continue to be deposed and their scandalous and ridiculous testimony continues to spill into the public domain.
Booboo the fool here ran her silly mouth to excess both before she was fired, and after. This case has no merit as either a 1st amendment or religious discrimination case - and she will ultimately fail because she was terminated from a specific position in keeping with institutional policy (of which she was no doubt aware and they've got a signed copy of her statement that she would abide by the same) and her termination was therefore for perfectly valid cause.
She doesn't pass the reasonable person test. That's why she's trying to work her bib-tard bigot and bully book and lecture hustle, as well as her Mary Kay cosmetics hustle from that little raggedy-azzed piece of a website.
She gonna be hard-pressed trying to make up that $134K she pissed out the window running her stoopit mouth. Oh, and that jackleg preacher of hers will be done with her the minute her tithing drops off from its previous high level.
Firing the woman is incorrect and a racist act. The reason being that the firing gives off the message that indeed being gay in this country is the socio-political equivalent of being black. That ain't even true within the gay community.
The problem is that Ms. Dixon went about her argument the wrong way. That argument implicitly acknowledged that gays are indeed discriminated against, but that they are discriminated against by choice
Quote: ""I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those CHOOSING the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am GENETICALLY and BIOLOGICALLY a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."
In other words, she is not condemning the oppression that gay people face, but only their choice to be oppressed.
Which shows how confused black folks have gotten. The correct focus should have been on the perpetrators and system of the oppression.
Thus she should have asked the following question:
Do white homosexuals benefit or do they not benefit from the system of white racism?
The next question she should have asked is "if it is so argued, how do black people benefit from any oppression of gays?"
By putting this matter in the realm of religion she obfuscated the real issue and can be painted by the racists by whom or on whose behalf she was fired (and who likely are very well aware of the real dichotomy as described above) as a bigot. She is gonna likely lose her case.
Especially since, according to DV, we not only do not live in a system of white supremacy, but, indeed in a system of black supremacy.
Kansas City mayorial shenanigans.....,
Good points Mike Fisher.
That was the same thing I was thinking. I've written about this quite a few times on my blog.
12 06 08
What a good set of discussions. I actually disagree with Craig and think what RJ says makes the most sense from a legal perspective, but since I'm no legal expert that is surely subjective;)
As much as I feel that gays have the right to marry in CA due to our state Constitution and precedent, I havta draw the line somewhere. She was clearly fired by the thought police. I hate this type of intolerance that the gay lobby puts forth. They are just as intolerant of people as Craig's 'bibtards'!
The bottom line is that in a pluralistic society, people are different. They should be able to express themselves so long as their actions don't harm others. One issue that hasn't been brought up is how the internet changes the notion of folks 'privately expressing their opinions'. If someone puts their opinion on a website and the public can view it, is the opinion private anymore?
I don't know what her employment contract looks like, but I do think its a cheap shot to offer her another position then fire her for not taking it. We all know in our hearts that she was assasinated in character by the PC Mafia.
I am all for equality before the LAW, but this is ridiculous! Pretty soon, anyone who is part of a religious organization will be discriminated against on the job and the self same arguments that gays used to get married will be used to preserve religious freedom.
This is a screwed up case.
And Fisher was right as well. No gay blogger, white or otherwise, has EVER addressed my question nor his that white gays benefitted from the racist institutions in this country.
Craig, I understand the spirit of the term 'bibtard' but when you throw it out there, don't forget that many bibtards of the last century were our allies against slavery. Where were the gay abolitionists who were 'out' at the time?
Mahndisa,
In fairly short order, I suspect we'll all see whose interpretation of standard corporate employment practices holds up in court. So there's no point in rehashing that.
She was clearly fired by the thought police. I hate this type of intolerance that the gay lobby puts forth.
Oh puh-leeze..., this buffoon clearly asserted that her stooperstitions contradict institutional policy and undermine her objectivity in a position that would leave the university open to bias charges. In fact, the existence and recency of such policy strongly suggests this had been an area of recent institutional controversy. Her continuing in that role would have greatly increased institutional vulnerability and potential liability.
As far as the bibtard terminology goes, I clearly distinguish between the highly literate, thoughtful, morally-educated, and sincerely religious moved to action by a spirit of conscience, and the ignorant, unschooled, borderline hysterical lemmings under jackleg authoritarian influence that I term "bib-tards".
No such creature ever has been or ever could be an ally of Black culture or of Black folks. Surely you don't pretend that the huddled herds in an evangelical megachurch today bear any semblance whatsoever to the holy assemblages in CRM-backing Black churches of 50 years ago or of Quaker abolitionists back in the day?
Where were the gay abolitionists who were 'out' at the time?
Can you cite a notable example of an influential "out" personage in 18th/19th century America, or was this a purely hypothetical construct larded in for rhetorical effect?
Post a Comment