10-01-2010, 09:35 AM
i do agree with you but for the sake of the discussion i'll play devils advocate.
it doesn't seem to undermine it enough for his boss to sack him does it.
are you saying it isn't possible for us to work with someone we don't agree with or whose policies are different?
isn't that the way we should work, to try and change those policies from within. not that this person is doing that. my point is this; must we concur with our bosses in order to not undermine ourselves.
the boss himself says "the man's a bully but as far as supreme court rulings go i can't sack him"
isn't he in turn undermining the supreme court?
as far as the videoing goes, id say stalker. but doesn't someone holding office put himself in the firing line. the person is gay has views about gay freedoms and rights. (i presume) and rightly so.
this ada obviously takes umbridge at those facts. he thinks gays are perverts, he thinks a person who leads his ex university in such way should be beyond reproach. shouldn't he be allowed to voice those opinions?
it doesn't seem to undermine it enough for his boss to sack him does it.
are you saying it isn't possible for us to work with someone we don't agree with or whose policies are different?
isn't that the way we should work, to try and change those policies from within. not that this person is doing that. my point is this; must we concur with our bosses in order to not undermine ourselves.
the boss himself says "the man's a bully but as far as supreme court rulings go i can't sack him"
isn't he in turn undermining the supreme court?
as far as the videoing goes, id say stalker. but doesn't someone holding office put himself in the firing line. the person is gay has views about gay freedoms and rights. (i presume) and rightly so.
this ada obviously takes umbridge at those facts. he thinks gays are perverts, he thinks a person who leads his ex university in such way should be beyond reproach. shouldn't he be allowed to voice those opinions?