"Well it turns out I could [be fired], unless it could be reasonably inferred that I was being fired for being part of a protected class. So had my boss said “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” or “The CEO thinks that’s what a nigger would wear”, things would have been different. But as it stands, the fact that my boss told me I was being fired related to appearance at all was definitely a dicey, questionable move."
I've no idea why he feels the need to talk about how "protected classes" can't be fired when he's talking about why he was fired, but it seems as if he's no idea why some people are protected based on their sex, sexuality or color.
Unless the author is gay, then “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” is in no way equivalent to "The CEO doesn't feel you have the right look for the company."
It wasn't worth getting into within the post, but there were strong suggestions that the CEO may have listened to a podcast of mine where I talk about having been an escort, and many people think I come off as gay. "What your look may convey to clients" really wasn't my favorite thing to hear.
http://www.fdpod.com/podcasts/episode-19-coming-out-vince-ma...
I don't know about your employer, but I would certainly think twice about keeping an employee who clearly doesn't realize the effect that this brand of open honesty has on people outside of SF kink circles.
They didn't can you because you were an escort; they canned you because you talk so openly about fucking on the internet, attached to your real name and without any kind of prompting. What else will you overshare?
To clear things up - I started writing for Broke-Ass Stuart in January of this year. The FDpod site launched in July 2013 (previous podcasts were hosted on my comedy site). I was mistaken in the timing of the escorting podcast - it was released a few weeks AFTER I was fired (in August 2012), because I felt comfortable at that point.
But things were definitely said around the office about my sexuality, questioning it, etc. which I am obviously more open about than most.
The first amendment has nothing to do with this. That governs the relationship between the government and "the people" and until incorporation via the 14th amendment it didn't even apply to states and their citizens. It has nothing to do with the employer / employee relationship. Secondly I didn't see anything wildly puritanical about the statement. A lot of people aren't comfortable with that type of content and that fact could have affected the CEO's decision to fire the OP; because he didn't feel comfortable presenting the OP as the face of the company, which as the sales guy he was.
Really? You don't think that might have been relevant to the story? And since you have just said that you weren't doing your Full Disclosure stuff at the time I assume that you went on someone else's podcast and talked about this stuff. That associates the company with what many consider unacceptable behavior because you are their representative. Now I wonder if the conversation wasn't more on the order of, "The CEO thinks we have an appearance problem, so we are going to have to let you go"
"Well it turns out I could [be fired], unless it could be reasonably inferred that I was being fired for being part of a protected class. So had my boss said “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” or “The CEO thinks that’s what a nigger would wear”, things would have been different. But as it stands, the fact that my boss told me I was being fired related to appearance at all was definitely a dicey, questionable move."
I've no idea why he feels the need to talk about how "protected classes" can't be fired when he's talking about why he was fired, but it seems as if he's no idea why some people are protected based on their sex, sexuality or color.
Unless the author is gay, then “The CEO thinks you dress like a faggot” is in no way equivalent to "The CEO doesn't feel you have the right look for the company."