The more alarming part of this is how incompetent the guy was. If he'd been just slightly less obvious it sounds like he'd have gotten away with his campaign of harassment.
I read the comments on the article, and looks like some of his colleagues posted on there saying he had embarrassed some good ol' boys, and the good Lord knows we can't have that, now can we?
I think this is a shame that he was hounded out of his job and the organisation because of his personal political stance. I disagree with him 100% on the issue but this is not a result that furthers any cause and doesn't cover anyone in glory.
And with my other comments being downvoted, it’s incredible that people are so up his arse that they live in a bubble thinking that it’s ok to belittle someone like that.
My qualm is with the term "vilified." It implies that he is being done undue harm - he's getting what he should be getting. He should not be in a leadership position.
It sets an extremely bad precedent that he was hounded so vehemently for a personal opinion he never brought to the workplace, and which is fairly mainstream, whether or not you agree with it.
reply