Local bigot fired at Kodak

Good lord I’m ashamed to have some relation to the Eastman Kodak company
after hearing this story!
(Formatting is my error)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29394
http://tinyurl.com/28hp
Kodak fires man over ‘gay’ stance 23-year veteran of global film giant
objected to pro-homosexual memo
Posted: October 24, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

A 23-year veteran of The Eastman Kodak Co. has been fired after objecting to
a pro-homosexual memo this month and is now looking to take legal action
against the film giant.

Rolf Szabo, who worked as a millwright at Kodak’s world headquarters in
Rochester, N.Y., was terminated for refusing to recant remarks officials say
did not adhere to the company’s “Winning & Inclusive Culture” designed to
promote diversity among employees.

The events that led to the action began when Szabo was forwarded an e-mail
from his supervisor regarding the Human Rights Campaign’s annual “Coming Out
Day.” The memo reads:

Today, Oct. 11, is the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th annual National Coming
Out Day for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. If one
of your employees elects to “come out” at work, there are several things you
can do to help that person feel comfortable in sharing his/her orientation
in the workplace:

– Be supportive of the individual who wishes to share this information.

– Acknowledge his/her courage to publicly share this personal information.

– Respect the individual’s privacy. Understand how broadly he/she wishes
the information to be shared.

– Acknowledge your level of awareness of this topic, and share your
personal willingness to understand.

What can supervisors do in the work environment to support their gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgendered employees who wish to be “out” to their
supervisor or co-workers?

– Be sensitive to the employee’s language in defining their personal
orientation.

– Support the employee in displaying appropriate personal photos in the
work setting.

– Recognize and respect that not all (gay, lesbian, bisexual or
transgendered) employees find it OK to be out at work. They should not be
questioned or harassed about their sexual orientation.

– Act quickly and responsibly if any anti-gay humor or negative comments
are made in the workplace.

A footnote referencing the last two suggestions reads:

Keep in mind that such behaviors violate Kodak’s Values as well as Kodak’s
Equal Opportunity Employment Policy, which all supervisors are responsible
for maintaining in their areas. Specific examples are cited in your “Call to
Action” training materials. Reported violations of this policy are to be
thoroughly investigated. If verified, disciplinary action is to be taken.

The response by Szabo was brief, but it was dispatched to all recipients of
the original e-mail, some 1,000 Kodak employees:

Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it
disgusting and offensive.

Thank you,

Rolf Szabo

Shortly after that comment, Szabo says another memo from manager Randy Bakel
was sent to all of the workers, apologizing for Szabo’s remarks:

As you all know, our strategic thrust to build a Winning & Inclusive Culture
drives us to behave in ways that value everyone regardless of differences.
While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs,
when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the Kodak
Values. I apologize for the e-mail sent to all of you from Rolf Szabo this
morning. Rolf’s comments are hurtful to our employees, friends and family
members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. This behavior is
not aligned with the Kodak Values and, therefore, is not acceptable.

Szabo tells WorldNetDaily he was asked to sign an ECP - an employee
commitment plan - saying he was sorry for what he had written and outlining
steps to make sure a similar incident would not recur. When he asked what
the alternative to signing it was, he was informed “termination.”

“I would not submit and cave in to their trying to browbeat me into a
confession,” said Szabo, who is looking for legal advice before telling more
details of his story.

Kodak, meanwhile, confirms the veracity of the e-mail memos, as well as
subsequent action it took.

“The whole thing is true,” said Jim Blamphin, Kodak’s manager of corporate
media relations. “This chap was asked to take part in a program that fosters
inclusion, and he refused.” But Blamphin also said there were additional
reasons for the termination, which he would not specify.

“Every possible definition of diversity is embraced by Kodak,” Blamphin
said. “This is a company that does not take these matters lightly.
Considerable thought is behind decisions that are made and policies that are
established.”

Indeed, the company makes no secret of its commitment to diversity. Its
website provides a large amount of material expounding upon its mindset:

“All of us at Kodak work from a set of core values,” says its mission
statement, “and we’re proud to say that our resulting personal conduct
allows for an environment that is free from inappropriate pressures and
diversions. We show respect for the dignity of the individual. And in the
process, we value and champion our human differences. This helps us maintain
the diversity of our workforce.”

Kodak also touts a list of accolades received in recent years, with a
consistent theme of equal opportunity and inclusion. Some of the honors
refer to the sexual orientation of employees:

10 Best Places for Lesbians to Work (1999) Kodak was given the above
recognition by Girlfriends magazine, a national lesbian publication.
Diversity 100 (1999)
Kodak was identified by Next Step magazine as taking the lead in addressing
diversity, and was acknowledged for its commitment to building and managing
a diverse workforce.
GFN.com 50 (1999)
The Gay Financial Network identified Kodak as No. 28 on the 1999 “GFN.com
50,” its list of the 50 most powerful and gay-friendly publicly traded
companies in the Fortune 500.
National Partnership for Reinventing Government - Diversity Best Practices
(1999)
Kodak was one of 11 companies selected for Vice President Al Gore’s National
Partnership for the Reinventing Government benchmarking study on best
practices: Achieving workforce diversity.
Top 25 Companies for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Employees
(1999)
Kodak was recognized by The Advocate magazine as one of the 25 top companies
that provide a good working atmosphere for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered employees.

And just this year, Kodak was one of 13 companies that earned a perfect
rating of 100 percent in the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s first
Corporate Equality Index. The index rates large corporations on policies
affecting their “gay,” lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees,
investors and consumers. The others sharing top honors were Aetna, American
Airlines, Apple Computers, Avaya, Intel, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lucent
Technologies, NCR, Nike, Replacements Ltd., Worldspan and Xerox.

“In the name of tolerance they foment a spirit of intolerance,” says
Rochester radio talk-show host Bob Lonsberry, who has been discussing
Kodak’s firing of Szabo on the air and in his online column. “Their ongoing
incessant theme is diversity of the most progressive sort, but those in the
workplace feel it’s rubbed in their face.”

Response to the issue on Lonsberry’s message board has favored Szabo
overwhelmingly.

“I work in the same division as Rolf,” said one message poster. “Kodak is
constantly trying to cram this diversity/ inclusive culture crap down our
throats. We are told by management that all beliefs are welcome. Well, as
Rolf found out, if your opinions and fundamental beliefs go against the
Kodak party line, you will be gone.”

“What a crock,” writes Paula from Rock Glen, N.Y. “You are now required at
risk of your job to go along with things that to you are immoral. How nice.
Now lets all holds hands and sing gay songs. If it is hurtful to the gay or
lesbian person that not everyone likes what they do maybe it is their own
ideas that what they are doing is wrong. And as for family of these people,
I am one of those, and I do not get offended at any person being offended by
what they are. They are immoral.”

Lonsberry says this isn’t the first time Kodak has gone overboard with
political correctness. He points out the company had planned to mark the
anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
by holding two all-day classes promoting inclusion as pointed out in this
memo:

Diversity: Beyond Race & Gender focuses on helping employees to better
understand diversity and inclusion as well as Kodak’s commitment to creating
an environment in which employees leverage diversity and inclusion to
maximize the potential of everyone. Stephanie Street gives a lively
presentation that provides employees the opportunity to think about
diversity and inclusion in broader terms than just race and gender.
How Has 9-11 Changed Our View of Diversity & Inclusion? is an open forum in
which employees are provided the opportunity to openly discuss where they
were on 9-11, their reactions, and subsequent insights into diversity. This
forum provides informal conversation with Brian O’Connor moderating the
discussion to ensure that everyone who so desires has an opportunity to
share.

“They turned Sept. 11 into a diversity field day,” recounts Lonsberry, who
points out backlash prompted the company to scrap plans for the classes and
simply hold a moment of silence.

Headed by CEO Dan Carp, Kodak is among America’s best-known companies,
employing 54,800 people in the U.S. and 97,500 worldwide, with global sales
of $13.2 billion.

Officials admit to getting some e-mails and calls about the termination,
most of which are sympathetic toward Szabo. And while Kodak won’t comment
now on the potential of any lawsuit, it doesn’t appear overly concerned
about the possibility of a consumer boycott.

“Any situation that casts a cloud over any large corporation, the first
thing people think of doing is stopping buying products,” Blamphin said. “On
any given day, there are over 1,000 boycotts against American products. …
You can’t name any, I can’t name any.”

Kodak can be contacted using this link on its website.

-Lisa

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

Lisa Marie wrote:
> Good lord I’m ashamed to have some relation to the Eastman Kodak company
> after hearing this story!

Why? Sounds like they took swift action against the offending person. A
company has a right to fire someone who acted so blatantly against their
agreed-upon values.

While I can understand some employees feeling as if their job is in
jeopardy if they don’t adhere to the workplace values of diversity -
well sorry, but you have that problem with any large company, just each
company has their own little book on what they promote.

By promoting diversity, Kodak is supporting the right of people to be
held worthy as individuals even when someone else’s core belief may hold
them immoral and “disgusting”. This relates to personal choices and not
bigotry. People who are intolerant and prejudiced like to point out that
they have just as much right to their beliefs as the people they hate -
but that’s the key word here, hate. No one has the right to harm another
individual. If you can keep your hate to yourself, fine. Most people can’t.

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

yeah I’m confused to. I think Kodak handled this situation well. They
basically said you are free to have your personal opinions, but please keep
them at home. We are looking for a positive work environment which involves
an understnaing of your fellow employees. It’s more than I can say about a
lot of buinesses. The fact they even distributed the original email is
amazing to me.


Brian Wilmot

http://www.jumpnow.net/
http://www.uglybillboards.com/
http://www.jumptraveler.com/

“Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:apmb70$fp1$1@www.darklock.com
> Good lord I’m ashamed to have some relation to the Eastman Kodak company
> after hearing this story!
> (Formatting is my error)
>
>
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29394
> http://tinyurl.com/28hp
> Kodak fires man over ‘gay’ stance 23-year veteran of global film giant
> objected to pro-homosexual memo
> Posted: October 24, 2002
>
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> By Joe Kovacs
>
>
> © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> A 23-year veteran of The Eastman Kodak Co. has been fired after objecting
to
> a pro-homosexual memo this month and is now looking to take legal action
> against the film giant.
>
> Rolf Szabo, who worked as a millwright at Kodak’s world headquarters in
> Rochester, N.Y., was terminated for refusing to recant remarks officials
say
> did not adhere to the company’s “Winning & Inclusive Culture” designed to
> promote diversity among employees.
>
> The events that led to the action began when Szabo was forwarded an e-mail
> from his supervisor regarding the Human Rights Campaign’s annual “Coming
Out
> Day.” The memo reads:
>
> Today, Oct. 11, is the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th annual National Coming
> Out Day for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered. If
one
> of your employees elects to “come out” at work, there are several things
you
> can do to help that person feel comfortable in sharing his/her orientation
> in the workplace:
>
> – Be supportive of the individual who wishes to share this information.
>
> – Acknowledge his/her courage to publicly share this personal
information.
>
> – Respect the individual’s privacy. Understand how broadly he/she wishes
> the information to be shared.
>
> – Acknowledge your level of awareness of this topic, and share your
> personal willingness to understand.
>
> What can supervisors do in the work environment to support their gay,
> lesbian, bisexual and transgendered employees who wish to be “out” to
their
> supervisor or co-workers?
>
> – Be sensitive to the employee’s language in defining their personal
> orientation.
>
> – Support the employee in displaying appropriate personal photos in the
> work setting.
>
> – Recognize and respect that not all (gay, lesbian, bisexual or
> transgendered) employees find it OK to be out at work. They should not be
> questioned or harassed about their sexual orientation.
>
> – Act quickly and responsibly if any anti-gay humor or negative comments
> are made in the workplace.
>
> A footnote referencing the last two suggestions reads:
>
> Keep in mind that such behaviors violate Kodak’s Values as well as Kodak’s
> Equal Opportunity Employment Policy, which all supervisors are responsible
> for maintaining in their areas. Specific examples are cited in your “Call
to
> Action” training materials. Reported violations of this policy are to be
> thoroughly investigated. If verified, disciplinary action is to be taken.
>
> The response by Szabo was brief, but it was dispatched to all recipients
of
> the original e-mail, some 1,000 Kodak employees:
>
> Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it
> disgusting and offensive.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Rolf Szabo
>
> Shortly after that comment, Szabo says another memo from manager Randy
Bakel
> was sent to all of the workers, apologizing for Szabo’s remarks:
>
> As you all know, our strategic thrust to build a Winning & Inclusive
Culture
> drives us to behave in ways that value everyone regardless of differences.
> While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs,
> when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the
Kodak
> Values. I apologize for the e-mail sent to all of you from Rolf Szabo this
> morning. Rolf’s comments are hurtful to our employees, friends and family
> members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. This behavior is
> not aligned with the Kodak Values and, therefore, is not acceptable.
>
> Szabo tells WorldNetDaily he was asked to sign an ECP - an employee
> commitment plan - saying he was sorry for what he had written and
outlining
> steps to make sure a similar incident would not recur. When he asked what
> the alternative to signing it was, he was informed “termination.”
>
> “I would not submit and cave in to their trying to browbeat me into a
> confession,” said Szabo, who is looking for legal advice before telling
more
> details of his story.
>
> Kodak, meanwhile, confirms the veracity of the e-mail memos, as well as
> subsequent action it took.
>
> “The whole thing is true,” said Jim Blamphin, Kodak’s manager of corporate
> media relations. “This chap was asked to take part in a program that
fosters
> inclusion, and he refused.” But Blamphin also said there were additional
> reasons for the termination, which he would not specify.
>
> “Every possible definition of diversity is embraced by Kodak,” Blamphin
> said. “This is a company that does not take these matters lightly.
> Considerable thought is behind decisions that are made and policies that
are
> established.”
>
> Indeed, the company makes no secret of its commitment to diversity. Its
> website provides a large amount of material expounding upon its mindset:
>
> “All of us at Kodak work from a set of core values,” says its mission
> statement, “and we’re proud to say that our resulting personal conduct
> allows for an environment that is free from inappropriate pressures and
> diversions. We show respect for the dignity of the individual. And in the
> process, we value and champion our human differences. This helps us
maintain
> the diversity of our workforce.”
>
> Kodak also touts a list of accolades received in recent years, with a
> consistent theme of equal opportunity and inclusion. Some of the honors
> refer to the sexual orientation of employees:
>
> 10 Best Places for Lesbians to Work (1999) Kodak was given the above
> recognition by Girlfriends magazine, a national lesbian publication.
> Diversity 100 (1999)
> Kodak was identified by Next Step magazine as taking the lead in
addressing
> diversity, and was acknowledged for its commitment to building and
managing
> a diverse workforce.
> GFN.com 50 (1999)
> The Gay Financial Network identified Kodak as No. 28 on the 1999 “GFN.com
> 50,” its list of the 50 most powerful and gay-friendly publicly traded
> companies in the Fortune 500.
> National Partnership for Reinventing Government - Diversity Best Practices
> (1999)
> Kodak was one of 11 companies selected for Vice President Al Gore’s
National
> Partnership for the Reinventing Government benchmarking study on best
> practices: Achieving workforce diversity.
> Top 25 Companies for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Employees
> (1999)
> Kodak was recognized by The Advocate magazine as one of the 25 top
companies
> that provide a good working atmosphere for gay, lesbian, bisexual and
> transgendered employees.
>
> And just this year, Kodak was one of 13 companies that earned a perfect
> rating of 100 percent in the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s first
> Corporate Equality Index. The index rates large corporations on policies
> affecting their “gay,” lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees,
> investors and consumers. The others sharing top honors were Aetna,
American
> Airlines, Apple Computers, Avaya, Intel, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lucent
> Technologies, NCR, Nike, Replacements Ltd., Worldspan and Xerox.
>
> “In the name of tolerance they foment a spirit of intolerance,” says
> Rochester radio talk-show host Bob Lonsberry, who has been discussing
> Kodak’s firing of Szabo on the air and in his online column. “Their
ongoing
> incessant theme is diversity of the most progressive sort, but those in
the
> workplace feel it’s rubbed in their face.”
>
> Response to the issue on Lonsberry’s message board has favored Szabo
> overwhelmingly.
>
> “I work in the same division as Rolf,” said one message poster. “Kodak is
> constantly trying to cram this diversity/ inclusive culture crap down our
> throats. We are told by management that all beliefs are welcome. Well, as
> Rolf found out, if your opinions and fundamental beliefs go against the
> Kodak party line, you will be gone.”
>
> “What a crock,” writes Paula from Rock Glen, N.Y. “You are now required at
> risk of your job to go along with things that to you are immoral. How
nice.
> Now lets all holds hands and sing gay songs. If it is hurtful to the gay
or
> lesbian person that not everyone likes what they do maybe it is their own
> ideas that what they are doing is wrong. And as for family of these
people,
> I am one of those, and I do not get offended at any person being offended
by
> what they are. They are immoral.”
>
> Lonsberry says this isn’t the first time Kodak has gone overboard with
> political correctness. He points out the company had planned to mark the
> anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon
> by holding two all-day classes promoting inclusion as pointed out in this
> memo:
>
> Diversity: Beyond Race & Gender focuses on helping employees to better
> understand diversity and inclusion as well as Kodak’s commitment to
creating
> an environment in which employees leverage diversity and inclusion to
> maximize the potential of everyone. Stephanie Street gives a lively
> presentation that provides employees the opportunity to think about
> diversity and inclusion in broader terms than just race and gender.
> How Has 9-11 Changed Our View of Diversity & Inclusion? is an open forum
in
> which employees are provided the opportunity to openly discuss where they
> were on 9-11, their reactions, and subsequent insights into diversity.
This
> forum provides informal conversation with Brian O’Connor moderating the
> discussion to ensure that everyone who so desires has an opportunity to
> share.
>
> “They turned Sept. 11 into a diversity field day,” recounts Lonsberry, who
> points out backlash prompted the company to scrap plans for the classes
and
> simply hold a moment of silence.
>
> Headed by CEO Dan Carp, Kodak is among America’s best-known companies,
> employing 54,800 people in the U.S. and 97,500 worldwide, with global
sales
> of $13.2 billion.
>
> Officials admit to getting some e-mails and calls about the termination,
> most of which are sympathetic toward Szabo. And while Kodak won’t comment
> now on the potential of any lawsuit, it doesn’t appear overly concerned
> about the possibility of a consumer boycott.
>
> “Any situation that casts a cloud over any large corporation, the first
> thing people think of doing is stopping buying products,” Blamphin said.
“On
> any given day, there are over 1,000 boycotts against American products.

> You can’t name any, I can’t name any.”
>
> Kodak can be contacted using this link on its website.
>
>
> -Lisa
>
>

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

“Shena Delian O’Brien” <shena@darklock.com> wrote in message
news:3DBEB9AD.2030205@darklock.com
> Lisa Marie wrote:
> > Good lord I’m ashamed to have some relation to the Eastman Kodak company
> > after hearing this story!

> By promoting diversity, Kodak is supporting the right of people to be
> held worthy as individuals even when someone else’s core belief may hold
> them immoral and “disgusting”. This relates to personal choices and not
> bigotry. People who are intolerant and prejudiced like to point out that
> they have just as much right to their beliefs as the people they hate -
> but that’s the key word here, hate. No one has the right to harm another
> individual. If you can keep your hate to yourself, fine. Most people
can’t.

The point is that he did not keep his bigoted opinions to himself…rather,
he felt the need to email the entire list. I don’t care if you have (what I
would call bigoted) opinions, just keep them to yourself.

Regards,
-Lisa

Re: Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

The point is that he did not keep his bigoted opinions to himself…rather,
he felt the need to email the entire list. I don’t care if you have (what I
would call bigoted) opinions, just keep them to yourself.

That is just as stupid as someone saying that they don’t mind if someone has liberal/enlightened/progressive opinions, but that they should keep them to themselves.

Everyone has the right to express their opinions, and the responsibilty for dealing with the consequences of expressing them.

Jtk

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

“Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:apmgv7$lo4$1@www.darklock.com

> The point is that he did not keep his bigoted opinions to
himself…rather,
> he felt the need to email the entire list. I don’t care if you have (what
I
> would call bigoted) opinions, just keep them to yourself.

but why does that make you ashamed of Eastman Kodak?


Rodney

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
news:apmhmj$mfj$1@www.darklock.com
> “Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:apmgv7$lo4$1@www.darklock.com
> but why does that make you ashamed of Eastman Kodak?

Through some geneaoligical research I have a distant relationship to George
Eastman. My paternal grandmother was an Eastman by blood.

Yeah, its a stretch, but it is my claim to fame. :slight_smile:

(Besides, I’ve lived in Rochester most of my life and Kodak is like a main
staple here. It really sucks to have this bigotry associated with my home
town, even indirectly.)

Regards,
-Lisa

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

“Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:apmigg$ncq$1@www.darklock.com

> Through some geneaoligical research I have a distant relationship to
George
> Eastman. My paternal grandmother was an Eastman by blood.

I’m still not getting it. Eastman did the right thing. So why are you
ashamed of that?


Rodney

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

Lisa Marie wrote:
>
> The point is that he did not keep his bigoted opinions to himself…rather,
> he felt the need to email the entire list. I don’t care if you have (what I
> would call bigoted) opinions, just keep them to yourself.

That’s not Kodak’s fault. When he did that, they took the necessary
steps to an immediate resolution.

Why would you feel ashamed to be connected to Kodak?

-Mike K.

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

Actually, I think it is the typical case of hiting the wrong reply button.
Instead of hitting Reply, he accidentally hit Reply All.

The way I understand this story, he attempted to send the message to the who
mailed out the original message, not to the 1000 people.

Eugene

“Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:apmgv7$lo4$1@www.darklock.com
>
>
> The point is that he did not keep his bigoted opinions to
himself…rather,
> he felt the need to email the entire list. I don’t care if you have (what
I
> would call bigoted) opinions, just keep them to yourself.
>
> Regards,
> -Lisa
>
>
>
>

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

Lisa Marie wrote:
>
> “Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
> news:apmhmj$mfj$1@www.darklock.com
> > “Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:apmgv7$lo4$1@www.darklock.com
> > but why does that make you ashamed of Eastman Kodak?
>
> Through some geneaoligical research I have a distant relationship to George
> Eastman. My paternal grandmother was an Eastman by blood.

So you feel that Kodak misbehaved in this situation? By firing a biggot?
I don’t understand. The person, “Szabo” or whatever, was the one who
misbehaved. He was fired…

-Mike K.

>
> Yeah, its a stretch, but it is my claim to fame. :slight_smile:
>
> (Besides, I’ve lived in Rochester most of my life and Kodak is like a main
> staple here. It really sucks to have this bigotry associated with my home
> town, even indirectly.)
>
> Regards,
> -Lisa

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

You really aren’t making any sense - Eastman did the RIGHT thing -
where’s the shame in that?

Lisa Marie wrote:
> Through some geneaoligical research I have a distant relationship to George
> Eastman. My paternal grandmother was an Eastman by blood.
>
> Yeah, its a stretch, but it is my claim to fame. :slight_smile:
>
> (Besides, I’ve lived in Rochester most of my life and Kodak is like a main
> staple here. It really sucks to have this bigotry associated with my home
> town, even indirectly.)
>
> Regards,
> -Lisa


Jay Tierney – jay@jaytierney.com

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

“Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
news:apmikc$nir$1@www.darklock.com
> “Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:apmigg$ncq$1@www.darklock.com
>
> > Through some geneaoligical research I have a distant relationship to
> George
> > Eastman. My paternal grandmother was an Eastman by blood.
>
> I’m still not getting it. Eastman did the right thing. So why are you
> ashamed of that?

That the person who was canned worked for them. Apparently he’s lawyering
up.

Regards,
-Lisa

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

On Tuesday 29 October 2002 12:47 pm, jtk wrote:

> That is just as stupid as someone saying that they don’t mind if someone
> has liberal/enlightened/progressive opinions, but that they should keep
> them to themselves.
>
> Everyone has the right to express their opinions, and the responsibilty
> for dealing with the consequences of expressing them.

Ditto


John R. Marshall

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

Lisa Marie wrote:
>
> “Rodney Blackwell” <rodney@webdiscuss.com> wrote in message
> news:apmikc$nir$1@www.darklock.com
> > “Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:apmigg$ncq$1@www.darklock.com
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Through some geneaoligical research I have a distant relationship to
> > George
> > > Eastman. My paternal grandmother was an Eastman by blood.
> >
> > I’m still not getting it. Eastman did the right thing. So why are you
> > ashamed of that?
>
> That the person who was canned worked for them. Apparently he’s lawyering
> up.[/color]

So you feel that Kodak is responsible because they hired a person whom
they had no idea would be such a prejudiced asshole? How are they in any
way to be ashamed of? They acted immediately and appropriately.

-Mike K.

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

“Lisa Marie” <lisany@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:apmta6$2u9$1@www.darklock.com

> That the person who was canned worked for them. Apparently he’s lawyering
> up.

that’s really weird logic. Eastman, the company you are ashamed of, held
values you seem to hold dear and did the right thing in this situation. Why
would you be ashamed of them doing the right thing and holding values
similar to your own. Just because someone worked for them doesn’t make the
whole company bad…especially when they got rid of the “bad apple”.

you should be proud of Eastman for by that logic. I’m not sure you are
seeing the bigger picture :slight_smile: For someone who has a programming background,
you have a weird sense of logic.


Rodney

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

No, I support Kodak and their decision to can this guy. It just upsets me
that people like Szabo live in Rochester.

-Lisa

> So you feel that Kodak is responsible because they hired a person whom
> they had no idea would be such a prejudiced asshole? How are they in any
> way to be ashamed of? They acted immediately and appropriately.
>
> -Mike K.

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

People like that live in every town, on every block, and are a part of
every family, group of people, etc. It’s just a part of life. What’s
wrong is when people let them get away with public displays of hatred
without reprecussion. That did not happen in this case.

-Mike K.

Lisa Marie wrote:
>
> No, I support Kodak and their decision to can this guy. It just upsets me
> that people like Szabo live in Rochester.
>
> -Lisa
>
> > So you feel that Kodak is responsible because they hired a person whom
> > they had no idea would be such a prejudiced asshole? How are they in any
> > way to be ashamed of? They acted immediately and appropriately.
> >
> > -Mike K.

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

I thought about this one for a while as I was reading this thread, and I
knew somebody in here would bring this up (the legend of Mike C. lives on).

The question is: how is saying “I’m gay” different than saying “I don’t like
gays”?

There are several fundamental differences between these two statements.

  1. “I’m gay” is simply a statement about a state of being, a tangible fact,
    the second one is a statement of opinion.

  2. The first statement is reflexive; it makes a statement about the person
    who is making the statement. The second is reflexive of the person’s
    opinion, but makes projective statement about other people.

  3. The first refers only to one person. The second refers to a collective
    group.

These are merely the differences, you may come up with others. How these
differences affect a person’s right to express him or herself in certain
situations is a bit more complex, but no less logical.

A right is different from an ability. A person always has the ability to do
things, to insult, hurt, or hate, to kill, argue, ignore, or to be
uneducated, uninformed, or closed-minded. A person also has the ability to
encourage, help, or love, to heal, compromise, listen, to be educated,
informed, understanding. Weather a person has a right to any of these
things is a different matter.

I. “Right … n. … 6. a. something that is due to a person or
governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.” (American Heritage
Dictionary)

II. “\Right, n. … 2. That to which one has a just claim. Specifically:
(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact.” (Webster’s Revised
Unabridged Dictionary)

III. “\Just, a. … 1. Conforming or conformable to rectitude or justice;
not doing wrong to any; violating no right or obligation; upright;
righteous; honest; true;” (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

From definition (I) we can derive that a right can be anything that is given
as due to a person as determined by nature. It can further be determined
from (II) that a right is only a right if the person has a just claim to it.
A just claim is one that is “not doing wrong to any” (III). Therefore, a
right is something that one has a natural claim to, is guaranteed by nature,
and does not wrong anyone.

A state of being is guaranteed by nature because in order to exist one must
be. By extension, one has a natural claim to a state of being. A state of
being cannot influence or change anything surrounding it, it simply exists,
and it therefore is capable of doing no wrong. Therefore, it is a natural
right to be anything, as in my example above: it is a right to be
uneducated, uninformed, or closed-minded, etc… It is also a right to be
homosexual.

An opinion is guaranteed by nature because all humans are capable of forming
an opinion and therefore have a natural claim to it. An opinion cannot
affect or change the surrounding world and therefore is capable of no wrong.
Having an opinion is therefore a natural right.

The ability to communicate is guaranteed by nature because all humans are
born with the ability to communicate on some level and therefore have a
natural claim to it. Communication can influence or change the surrounding
world and therefore is capable of doing wrong. Communication is therefore
only a natural right if it does not wrong anyone.

To my hypothetical question. The first statement is (1) about a state of
being, which was just proved to be a natural right, so the content the
statement expresses is a right. The statement itself refers (3) to one and
only one person, and the person it refers to (2) is the person making the
statement. The content of the statement is a natural right guaranteed to
that person and therefore unable to do harm to that person. Therefore it is
a natural right to make the first statement.

The content second statement is (1) an opinion, which is a natural right to
the person with the opinion. The statement itself does not refer singly (2)
to the person making it or the person who has a right to the opinion, it may
not refer to that person at all. Because the communication is regarding
people who do not have a right to the content of the communication, the
message can change its surroundings and is therefore capable of harm.
Making the second statement is therefore not a natural right.

It can further be argued that the second statement is not only capable of,
but indeed does harm others. Making the statement is therefore neither a
right nor just.

Does Kodak have the right to modify the personal rights of individuals?
Yes. In this case it is a governmental body (I) and so it does have rights
of its own. Among those rights is the right to limit certain rights of the
people who it governs as long as law permits. The company is indeed a fair
government (not necessarily fair or unfair in its practices) because people
under its governance are able to freely join, and leave, and while freely
members of the governed body, people are able to lobby change.

Finally, it is the nature of Mr. Szabo’s statement that makes it unjust, not
his position on homosexuality. If someone were to respond to Mr. Szabo’s
message with “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as
I find it disgusting and offensive”, the consequences for that person should
be the same as for Mr. Szabo.

-Dan Lauber

djlauber@uwm.edu

“jtk” <jtk.daqhy@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote in message
news:jtk.daqhy@timelimit.unicyclist.com

>
> The point is that he did not keep his bigoted opinions to
> himself…rather,
> he felt the need to email the entire list. I don’t care if you have
> (what I
> would call bigoted) opinions, just keep them to yourself.
>
> That is just as stupid as someone saying that they don’t mind if someone
> has liberal/enlightened/progressive opinions, but that they should keep
> them to themselves.
>
> Everyone has the right to express their opinions, and the responsibilty
> for dealing with the consequences of expressing them.
>
> Jtk
>
>
> –
> jtk
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> jtk’s Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/361
> View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21313
>

Re: Local bigot fired at Kodak

Dan Lauber wrote:
> I thought about this one for a while as I was reading this thread, and I
> knew somebody in here would bring this up (the legend of Mike C. lives on).

Very well thought out, Dan. :slight_smile: