Red Cross ... Comments??

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
23
38
Victoria, BC
I credit this find to Curiosity from another board ... pretty interesting. Obviously I support gay rights, but maybe the PC police went a bit far with this one? If it had been the other way around (gay man getting fired for commenting), there would be a huge outcry. To me equality is that ... EQUAL. The guy should have been reprimanded for his email, but fired? I don't think so.

http://am.novopress.info/index.php?p=872

Man Fired By American Red Cross For Not Celebrating Homosexuality

The Red Cross even has Corporate Diversity committees that oversee the implementation of a “diversity code.”
The American Red Cross fired an employee, Michael Hartman, for expressing his disagreement with homosexuality.

Hartman had been a volunteer and donor for the Red Cross for over 30 years when he became an employee at the San Diego, California, center. He had been there for about eight months when, in the latter part of May 2005, a mass e-mail was sent to employees reminding everyone that June was Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and employees were encouraged to “observe” the celebration.

The e-mail, distributed by Chief Diversity Officer David Wilkins, stated, “It is my pleasure to announce that June will be recognized as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month at national headquarters…It is only fitting that we reinforce our organization’s commitment to inclusion…by recognizing this important group and celebrating the many accomplishments they have made to our organization…I’d like to take this opportunity during the month of June to encourage field units to extend their reach into gay and lesbian communities.”

As a Christian, Hartman was concerned by the e-mail and expressed his sentiments to his female supervisor, “who did not care.” He then e-mailed several head administrators, who immediately called him into the Red Cross regional center in Pomona, California. Hartman was reprimanded and told that his e-mail was “not appropriate.”

The “inappropriate” e-mail that Hartman sent contained the following statements:

“I would like to start by stating that I am a Christian not willing to compromise my beliefs to promote the agenda of the homosexual community. I would also like to say that I think it’s disgraceful that while most of us [at the Red Cross] are trying to save lives, a select few are using this organization to promote their own lifestyles which in my opinion are unacceptable.”

(emphasis added).

Hartman went on to say that if anyone reading his e-mail “is personally involved in this lifestyle…I think it’s important that you know I have nothing against you as a person but the life you’ve chosen to live.” He added Bible verses including Galatians 6:7 and Joshua 24:15.

After being reprimanded, Hartman took a week off of work because his mother, a U.S. Marine, had passed away. When he returned to the office, he noticed that Gay and Lesbian Pride posters were placed all over the office.

In a later e-mail to the Pacific Justice Institute, an organization that Hartman contacted after his termination, he wrote, “One of my primary jobs is recruiting and promoting the Red Cross. Under the present circumstances I cannot promote something that harbors and encourages this sexual cancer, that we all know is eroding our society.”

Convicted that he had to take action, Hartman “prayed about it” and put together an e-mail to the Southern California region of the Red Cross. In the e-mail, he reiterated, “I respect and value your opinions” but added, “as you explained to me, celebrating homosexual pride month is consistent with our recognition of Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Older Americans Month, and Asian Pacific Islanders Heritage Month…I’m still struggling to see a correlation between celebrating Great Americans and celebrating a sexual preference.”

He also suggested that since the Red Cross is “such a diversified organization,” perhaps it should hold a Christian celebration.

He was put on “administrative leave” from work and called into another meeting with administrators.

James Hartline, an ex-homosexual who is now a Christian conservative activist, went with Hartman to the meeting to serve as a form of representation. The administrators refused to see Hartman unless he was by himself, and when he insisted upon having counsel at the meeting, he was dismissed and told that they would “reschedule” a time to speak with him. Two days later, he received his termination notice.

Hartman has experienced an intensely difficult year - two years ago, he lost all of his belongings in the California wildfires, and he recently lost his mother. A Sunday School teacher and father of three daughters, he said, “I realize what I’m up against, but I’ll go the distance…So many have a complacent attitude, and our kids are facing the consequences.”

He plans to seek help from Christian legal groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund.

Unfortunately, Hartman’s legal options may be limited, as the Red Cross is a privately funded organization and may therefore exert its own prerogative in these matters.

The Red Cross even has its own body of Corporate Diversity committees that oversees the implementation of a “diversity code” for the organization. Employees must participate in “diversity training” seminars, and they are subject to the “diversity vision” of the Red Cross that includes “sexual orientation” on the list of “communities we serve.”

“We are seeing an alarming double standard emerging in corporations and nonprofits,” said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture & Family Institute. “If you are not in a specially protected group, you don’t get the same consideration. More and more, Christians are being harshly disciplined or even fired for actions that would bring a slap on the wrist to a homosexual activist or feminist.”

It is important that Christians are alerted to this unfortunate situation. Many Christians give money or support to the American Red Cross without ever realizing that the organization openly promotes homosexuality.

In the words of Michael Hartman, “If the public knew what was going on within the Red Cross I have no doubt their unselfish support would screech to a halt.”

Lindsey Douthit is a Ronald Reagan Memorial Intern with Concerned Women for America. She interviewed Michael Hartman over the phone on July 29, 2005. A representative for the Red Cross could not be reached for comment.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Well they sure sent a message to the rest of their employees .KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT IF YOU VALUE YOUR JOB 8O Not that i agree with the guy but hey everybodys got there own opinions most don't belong in the work place though
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
“I respect and value your opinions” but added, “as you explained to me, celebrating homosexual pride month is consistent with our recognition of Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Older Americans Month, and Asian Pacific Islanders Heritage Month…I’m still struggling to see a correlation between celebrating Great Americans and celebrating a sexual preference.”

He's not grasping the minority status of homosexuals. I do think however the Red Cross went a bit too far, they do not advertise anything about supporting homosexuality, and it shouldn't be a cause to terminate someone because he didn't want to attend an activity. That is non-sense.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
18
38
Saint John N.B.
Yes,he should have just been warned or suspended for inappropriate EMail use at work--but,not fired! It's not as if he was making nasty comments about them ,is it?
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Yup, I must say I was "curious" myself about this story. :read2: Funny innit?? how if you google the story...all the links pretty much to go neo con site....Red Flag :twisted: Okay lets start with this piece of bit :? :?

:read2:
Those silly Concerned Women For America are coming to the defense of a man who was fired from the American Red Cross this summer, for what they say was his refusal to "celebrate homosexuality" during Gay Pride Month. So it sounds like he just didn't want to hop on Pride Parade float, party with some drag queens, or shake his booty at a tea dance, right? Well maybe in the real world kiddies, but in the world where anti-gay is "pro-family" and marriage is involved in some sort of crazy scary war, "not celebrating homosexuality" means unapologetically demonizing and stigmatizing those who embrace a society where equality and acceptance are the name of the game.

CWFA reports that in an email to some of his head administrators, the man, Michael Hartman, said he thinks "it's disgraceful that while most of us [at the Red Cross] are trying to save lives, a select few are using this organization to promote their own lifestyles which in my opinion are unacceptable." In that same missive, he also reportedly told his gay coworkers that are "personally involved in this lifestyle…I think it's important that you know I have nothing against you as a person but the life you've chosen to live." In a later, post-termination email to the Pacific Justice Institute, Hartman is said to have asserted his belief that the Red Cross "harbors and encourages this sexual cancer, that we all know is eroding our society."

Well that certainly is a non-celebration, now isn't it?

CWFA goes on to quote Hartman as saying, "If the public knew what was going on within the Red Cross I have no doubt their unselfish support would screech to a halt." Well, we'd like to think not; though we totally believe that if the public were aware of just how fervently and frighteningly you extreme "pro-family" types were pushing for homosexual eradication, rabid anti-gay sentiment would certainly drop like a mofo overnight.

Now if only we could give blood... :study:
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Man! it get better I tell ya... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: now who are these "concerned women for america" hehehehhehehe man these guys alway pick such lame names :? :? well here where the twaddle meets the twats.. :? :? This is the group making the fuss about the red cross firing...bwhahahhahaha can you believe these guys 8O *shakes head*

Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture & Family Institute is always good for a laugh. If for no other reason, his organization's gender-specific title is diametrically opposed to the male genitalia of which Mr. Knight has been (presumably) blessed. But that's the easy laugh, of which Mr. Knight is surely cursed on an hourly basis.

For the really good guffaws, one must direct attention to one of Bobby's frequent quotes and sound bites, in which he feebly attempts to justify intolerance and fanatical thought processes through his patented brand of "point missing."

Today's doozies come courtesy of Agape Press, and feature Bobby responding to those pesky "activist judges." (In case you haven't been keeping up, America's judges are currently out to destroy the world one gay couple at a time).

Regarding California's crazy judicial tyrant, Knight says:

"Obviously, a man who can't find a single reason that marriage is the union of a man and a woman -- not the six-billion people on the planet who are the product of such unions -- is just seriously unfit for the bench."
Which might be a semi- valid point if the judge was in fact denying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. But he ain't. He's saying marriage can also be the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Knight then takes on NY's Doris-Ling Cohan, saying:

"There was another lunatic judge in New York who started by quoting Romeo and Juliet to make the case for same-sex marriage, which is kind of odd since Romeo and Juliet are clearly an opposite-sex couple."
WHAT?? And here we thought Romeo was just a really butch les, what with the tights and all. Well whatever, love is love. Quit trying to make it a hetero vs. homo thing, Bobby!

Roberto suggests that the "radical judges" should be removed by Congress. We, however, think the correct remedy would be for Mr. Knight to remove the gigantic perma-wad from his floral panties, and start opening his heart and mind to the notion of true love.

Pro-Family Leaders: Judicial Activists Continue Attack on Marriage, Family [AgapePress.org]
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Red Cross ... Comment

Funny how that works, isn't it? The guy gets fired for spreading hate and the story we get is that he was being discriminated against because of his beliefs.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Red Cross ... Comment

What I always find hilarious is the way these people who are misrepresenting the truth in such a nasty manner are so quick to claim to be Christians. I've read their book...they ain't following it.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
23
38
Victoria, BC
RE: Red Cross ... Comment

I dunno ... the point seems to be that the man was treated in a way that he shouldn't have been. Whether the source is a right wing site doesn't really matter as long as the information is accurate. No matter what twist you put on it, he was fired for speaking up about his beliefs. I don't subscribe to those beliefs, but will defend to the death his right to express them without repercussion.
 

GL Schmitt

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2005
785
0
16
Ontario
It seems fairly straightforward to me.

The man prayed about his concern, then repeatedly resisted following his employer’s wishes and now he is unemployed. He either misunderstood what God told him to do, or else God wanted to get him fired!

Perhaps he should have looked elsewhere in his bible. Matthew, Chapter 22, Verse 21, for example, which includes the phrase, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.” (Keep politics separate from religion, and vice versa.)

While one can imagine the temptation it must be to show off the possession of a companion who has the distinction of being “an ex-homosexual who is now a Christian conservative activist,” bringing him along on what was intended to be an administrative rebuke, is rather bad form.

(Unless, of course, the companion planned to testify about the pride he had in his former gaiety.)

The American Red Cross, I believe must shoulder some responsibility, if for nothing else, at least for a badly worded memo.

If the article is correct in its particulars, the employees were encouraged to “observe” the celebration. This leaves in doubt exactly what is expected of a heterosexual who is asked to “extend his reach into gay and lesbian communities.”

If nothing else, the word “observe” might be confused by the weak-headed to mean encouraging heterosexuals to couple, and then to watch.

I would suggest that a heterosexual’s duties during Gay and Lesbian Pride Week are (first) to recognize that their role is not that of a censor, and (second) not to hog the spotlight.

People must learn to understand that there are some occasions where they will be asked to take a part, which is not about them.
 

manda

Council Member
Jul 3, 2005
2,007
0
36
swirling in the abyss of nowhere la
Re: RE: Red Cross ... Comment

Cosmo said:
I dunno ... the point seems to be that the man was treated in a way that he shouldn't have been. Whether the source is a right wing site doesn't really matter as long as the information is accurate. No matter what twist you put on it, he was fired for speaking up about his beliefs. I don't subscribe to those beliefs, but will defend to the death his right to express them without repercussion.

I agree with you that anyone should have the right to express their beliefs, but I worked for the Red Cross when I taught swimming lessons and was under the impression that anyone who would discriminate against any religion, race etc. openly would be terminated frome their position. While I don't neccessarily agree with what this man has done, I feel that if a homosexual had done the same thing, only against heterosexuals or any other group, they would have also lost their job. Now I can't say this for sure because its been a looong time since I worked with them, but this is my general understanding of the policies that we are well informed of as soon as we are hired with the Red Cross
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
The red flag for me was this part:

"The “inappropriate” e-mail that Hartman sent contained the following statements: "

Anyone who uses this "contained the following statements" bit is usually selectively quoting a document to support their own view.

And in my experience, those who start off their comments with "as a Christian" are usually about to either steal from you, or to act in the most UN-Christian manner possible.

I would suggest that if you actually dug into the facts, you'd find that he went far beyond the "don't want to promote" crap. But that wouldn't cause such a fuss.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Red Cross ... Comment

Cosmo said:
I dunno ... the point seems to be that the man was treated in a way that he shouldn't have been. Whether the source is a right wing site doesn't really matter as long as the information is accurate. No matter what twist you put on it, he was fired for speaking up about his beliefs. I don't subscribe to those beliefs, but will defend to the death his right to express them without repercussion.

I guess you can't win them all.....