You've gotta think of the consequences

As part of their support sucking up to Big Bidness, the Republicans have long been an advocate for what is disingenuously called "employment at will." What that policy boils down to is that your employer can hire you when it damn well feels like it, and can fire you on exactly the same terms. For any reason, or for no reason at all.

According to this story in today's Chicago Tribune, it seems there's at least one local Republican who doesn't think that's fair. Meet J. Matt "Bam Bam" Barber, a self-described born-again Christian from Villa Park. Last December, he wrote up a screed "denouncing same-sex marriage and the 'destructive nature ... of the homosexual lifestyle.'"

Barber posted the compilation of the usual wingnut talking points on a conservative website. Some time later, his supervisors at Allstate called him on the carpet about it, suspended him without pay, escorted him off the corporate premises in suburban Northbrook, and fired him three days later. In fairness to Barber, he did not mention his affiliation with Allstate in the, um, "article," and claims that he did not use either company time or resources to compose it or post it. That gets him no sympathy from his former employers, however.

So now Barber has gone and lawyered up. His lawyer works for the same firm of scum-sucking bottom-feeders who represented Terri Schiavo's parents, so you can guess what kind of legal nonsense is going to come out in this lawsuit. Barber has alleged in federal court papers that Allstate's termination of his employment represents...wait for it...anti-Christian discrimination. Since Barber's law degree comes from Pat Robertson's diploma mill, I'm sure that seemed like a plausible cause of action to him.

As for me, I think it's a crock of shit and a colossal waste of a federal court's time and a lot of taxpayer money that could be better used prosecuting people who have committed real crimes. (Like, for example, lying our way into a war, or losing $9 billion of taxpayers' money.) It appears that the reality-based legal community agrees with me:

The strategy behind Barber's lawsuit is an unusual one, said Matthew Finkin, law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Contrary to popular belief, private companies in Illinois and in virtually every other state can fire workers for saying things that embarrass the company--a fact many bloggers have learned the hard way, he said.

Barber's theory is that his views on same-sex marriage constitute religious expression and thus are protected under federal civil rights laws.

The suit is phrased accordingly, saying Barber "felt led of God to write and submit [the article] for online publication."

Finkin said Barber's argument may be hampered by the fact that he does not quote Scripture to support his argument and instead roots his positions in statements about biology and traditional values. "Political polemics are not protected in Illinois," Finkin said.

So if I feel "led of God" to come to work bare-assed naked and insist all my coworkers have sex with me, and I get fired, can I claim religious discrimination for that, too? Puh-leeze.

Comments

[Bryan]

Let's not forget that they are always victims of oppresson, no matter what.

[Michael]

You're right. I forgot to allow for the Automatic Republican Persecution Complex.

[Incertus]

So if I feel "led of God" to come to work bare-assed naked and insist all my coworkers have sex with me, and I get fired, can I claim religious discrimination for that, too? Puh-leeze.

You can get fired for that?

Seriously, though--if this guy actually wins, I may just do that. (I won't actually--I like my job too much, but the possibilities are endless.)

[Bryan]

Seriously, how can anyone trivialize their beliefs like this?

I would probably make a stink based on not mentioning the company in the statements, but to use your religion in this manner does not speak well of your commitment.

[Michael]

He didn't mention his connection with Allstate, Bryan, but it did come out (so to speak). Apparently Bam Bam figured all the media were like the Republican Noise Machine: they only investigate things that make Democrats and liberals look bad. So when Allstate's connection to the author of this screed became public knowledge, they had a legitimate gripe against him for embarrassing the company and adversely affecting its ability to do business. He may not have revealed the connection himself, but due diligence on his part would have led inescapably to the conclusion that someone was bound to figure it out, and therefore he should have avoided writing the piece in the first place.

[Incertus]

Exactly--that's part of the reason why, ever since I got my teaching position, I've delinked my personal website from my blog and I've toned down the "rhetoric" (read cursing) on it. My personal website deals with writing--my blog with whatever interests me at the time. And while I haven't tried to become completely blog-anonymous (as if I could), I've tried to make it so that my connections with my employer are not linked with my blogging. I don't even talk about work, and won't, just because I don't want any unnecessary grief.

[Bryan]

If I was trying to be anonymous I would be, as it doesn't take a lot of effort to do that, even today, or we wouldn't have spam and phishing.

Leaving a trail was stupid on his part, then, and there is ample case law on the Federal level to support the company's position that they want to sell insurance to everyone which precludes annoying anyone. Coors didn't hire Mary Cheney because of their liberal philosophy.

[Michael]

I think Bam Bam's problem was, as so often with Republicans, pride. He's convinced he's not only right, but that his position is superior to all those "librul weenies" out there who believe in tolerance and all that other wishy-washy crap. Hence his decision to put his name to his screed. Once that was done, I suspect it was a simple matter of Googling to turn up where he worked.

I keep this place at least semi-anonymous for much the same reasons, Brian. Though technically you and I probably could get away with a lot more than Bam Bam ever could, on academic freedom grounds. As long as we're not advocating treason or outright violence, neither of our blogs should get us in trouble. Still, ordinary prudence dictates a certain amount of caution. I don't want to give the impression that I'm speaking for the university when I write here, and I also don't want to muck up any of its carefully managed lobbying campaigns when I'm bashing Fat Denny. If someone really wanted to, they could dig up where I work, but as a general rule I'm not going to mention that here. It's safer that way for all concerned.