Home > Political Correctness, Same Sex Marriage > Christian consultant gets another pink slip

Christian consultant gets another pink slip

August 31st, 2011

by Charlie Butts

Yet another major corporation has fired a well-known leadership and teambuilding trainer for writing a book on how same-gender “marriage” causes harm.

Frank TurekDr. Frank Turek is the author of Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone. First, Cisco Systems canceled a training contract with Turek even though the sessions had nothing to do with his views on same-gender marriage. Now, Bank of America has done the same — and in both cases, because one person complained.

“And he got a call from the [BOA] vice president for inclusion and diversity — which is funny because the ‘inclusion’ person called to exclude him from the workforce by firing him for simply holding an opinion that’s held by most Americans,” explains Dr. Mike Adams, associate professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

Adams, who is also a conservative columnist for Townhall.com, wonders hypothetically what would happen if a conservative staff member at BOA complained of a man providing a seminar who happens to be homosexual and had written a book defending homosexual marriage.

Mike Adams“Would it have been taken seriously? Well, no,” says Adams, answering his own rhetorical question. “I think in the case of Bank of America … it’s more realistic to assume that the person making the complaint under that scenario would have been charged with sexual harassment or excluded from the workplace.”

The criminology prof goes on to say that Turek’s case is an example “of the extreme political correctness that we have seen that’s beginning to leak into the business world — and it’s a shame.”

Keep reading.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. August 31st, 2011 at 12:47 | #1

    You know if I were in charge of hiring consultants to teach classes on leadership and team-building, I might opt not to choose a teacher who goes on the radio and announces that gays hate Western Civilization in general and the Declaration of Independence in particular (same as if he were making the accusation against blacks, or Jews, or Catholics, or evangelicals).

    Even as I supported his legal right to make such divisive and insulting statements, I could quite reasonably conclude that he’s not the right man to foster “team-building” in my business.

  2. Regan DuCasse
    August 31st, 2011 at 15:41 | #2

    Lots of people are getting pink slips for really sad reasons, and might NEVER get another job they are skilled for or put so much time into.
    When someone’s mouth becomes a liability to the effectiveness of their employer, there is a GOOD reason for Turek to be shown the door.

    I don’t know what makes so many so called Christians think that they can say anything, and especially if they are walking on the edge of libel and slander of groups their employer includes in their personnel. It’s arrogant to expect there be no consequences for creating a bad image for the boss.

  3. August 31st, 2011 at 16:47 | #3

    Well I would guess that these big corporations have a number of gay employees, possibly some married gay employees. Are you saying that you think they should have to hire someone who is hurtful to those employees? Shouldn’t their loyalty be to their employees, and not to some outside contractor?

  4. Sean
    August 31st, 2011 at 18:31 | #4

    “Turek’s case is an example “of the extreme political correctness that we have seen that’s beginning to leak into the business world — and it’s a shame.””

    Actually, it’s not about political correctness but the very welcome news that some companies are taking a moral stand. Shouldn’t these companies have done the same thing if Mr. Turek’s victims were Jews or blacks, instead of gays?

  5. Paul H
    September 1st, 2011 at 00:38 | #5

    Emma :
    Well I would guess that these big corporations have a number of gay employees, possibly some married gay employees. Are you saying that you think they should have to hire someone who is hurtful to those employees? Shouldn’t their loyalty be to their employees, and not to some outside contractor?

    Do you think that Christian employees should get the same consideration? For example, I am offended by some things that atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins have written about Christianity in their books. If Dawkins conducted highly rated leadership seminars during which he said absolutely nothing about atheism or Christianity, would you be OK with my company cancelling him so as not to offend me?

  6. September 1st, 2011 at 09:17 | #6

    So if a man has a job in which his performance is praised and he never discusses his philosophies at work, he is therefore not permitted to express his beliefs off-duty and away from the work place because someone might find out what his beliefs are? A person isn’t allowed to have a life outside of work that doesn’t interfere with his work?

    And the homophiles call those who are against same-sex faux marriage the bigots! Where is your tolerance, Rob, Regan and Emma?

  7. Betsy
    September 1st, 2011 at 10:22 | #7

    Sean, do you think they would have taken the same stand if his “victims” were Christians? I think not.

  8. September 1st, 2011 at 10:57 | #8

    Glenn, a person has every right to a life outside of work. And sometimes it may affect your ability to do your job. For instance, if you claim an entire group of people hate Western Civilization and the Declaration of Independence — not just claim it, but make a living by writing and lecturing and going on radio and making yourself a public spokesman for that view, hoping for as wide an audience as you can — then it may interfere with your ability to be a “team-builder” for those people you have defamed.

    An employer would have to be irrational not to take that into account.

  9. September 1st, 2011 at 11:04 | #9

    Paul H, if a “team-building” instructor defamed Christians in general, and made a good living portraying them as enemies of Western Civilization, and did so in as public a way as he could and in as many venues as would have him, and if I employed Christians who knew of these activities and were insulted and reasonably distrusted his powerful disdain of who they are, then I would be justified in selecting a different person to lead my company’s “team-building” activities.

  10. September 1st, 2011 at 11:15 | #10

    Paul H :

    Emma :
    Well I would guess that these big corporations have a number of gay employees, possibly some married gay employees. Are you saying that you think they should have to hire someone who is hurtful to those employees? Shouldn’t their loyalty be to their employees, and not to some outside contractor?

    Do you think that Christian employees should get the same consideration? For example, I am offended by some things that atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins have written about Christianity in their books. If Dawkins conducted highly rated leadership seminars during which he said absolutely nothing about atheism or Christianity, would you be OK with my company cancelling him so as not to offend me?

    Sure. Last I checked, these companies can hire or not hire whomever they want, right? Not that Dawkins would be caught dead doing something like this. (And for the record, while I may be an atheist, I don’t much like Dawkins either.)

    And Glenn, I would argue that a man’s published works are part of his work, regardless of whether he quotes or uses that particular part of his work in his leadership sessions. It’s not like the people who were upset at his anti-gay rhetoric were stealing his private emails or something in order to find out his opinions.

  11. Sean
    September 1st, 2011 at 15:51 | #11

    “Sean, do you think they would have taken the same stand if his “victims” were Christians? I think not.”

    Probably not, but Christians aren’t a minority and they aren’t historically maligned or marginalized. Many prominent persons reject Christian beliefs and few Christians would reject having them at a company if their services were needed.

    It’s different when you attack minorities.

  12. Betsy
    September 1st, 2011 at 16:31 | #12

    “Christians aren’t a minority and they aren’t historically maligned or marginalized.” Ever read a history book?

  13. Heidi
    September 2nd, 2011 at 07:58 | #13

    @Betsy
    Considering that the majority of Americans are Christian, I would be hard-pressed to say that they are historically maligned or marginalized in our society, notwithstanding the historical or current persecution of Christians in other countries.

    In any event, I agree with Rob and Emma in that I can understand why an employer that is interested in diversity and team-building may not want to employ someone who has alienated and attacked an entire class of citizens.

  14. September 2nd, 2011 at 09:04 | #14

    @Rob Tisinai Gee, it never interfered before. It only interfered when one guy looked him up on the ‘net to find out who he was and the thing spread like wildfire among homosexualists. BUT, we know being against same-sex faux marriage never brings harm to anyone, because the homosexualists say so!

  15. September 2nd, 2011 at 09:06 | #15

    @Emma No, his published works were NOT a part of his business for which he was being paid, and they were never considered a problem until one person decided to make an issue and then it went viral among homosexualists. He tells the truth and you can’t handle it.

  16. September 2nd, 2011 at 09:06 | #16

    @Sean Homophiles aren’t a minority group. Sexual behavior doesn’t define minority.

  17. Paul H
    September 2nd, 2011 at 09:12 | #17

    Emma:
    Sure. Last I checked, these companies can hire or not hire whomever they want, right?

    Alright, I appreciate your consistency. From the standpoint of what is legal or illegal, I absolutely agree that companies should be able to hire or fire whomever they want. I would actually like to see fewer legal restrictions, not more restrictions, on the ability of private companies to choose who they do and do not hire. In other words, I do not think that there is a legal issue here.

    However, just as Cisco and Bank of America may legally choose not to hire Dr. Turek, similarly I and others have the legal right to complain about that decision, and to point out that the decision gives at least the appearance of anti-Christian discrimination or bigotry. I also am free to choose not to do business with those companies, and to let them know why I’m not doing business with them.

    In other words, yes I think that the complaints about Dr. Turek’s treatment are justified. But I don’t think that the company in any way broke the law, or that they should be subject to a lawsuit over their decision.

  18. Heidi
    September 2nd, 2011 at 11:39 | #18

    @Paul H
    Paul H, that is a sensible and logically consistent response. I agree that there is no issue of illegal activity here, and I agree with your right to boycott companies that make political decisions with which you do not agree. This is why many on my side of the issue would like NOM to release the names of its donors, so that those of us in support of marriage equality may choose to not do business with individuals and companies that are in favor of discrimination against us. Both of us are completely entitled to criticize and complain about political decisions by individuals and companies, and to use the power of our pocketbooks to seek the change we would like to occur.

  19. September 2nd, 2011 at 12:26 | #19

    Glenn, let’s be very clear. Frank Turek goes waaaaay beyond expressing opposition to same sex marriage. To pretend otherwise is to distort the facts.

  20. September 2nd, 2011 at 15:03 | #20

    @PaulH: “the decision gives at least the appearance of anti-Christian discrimination or bigotry.”

    This would be true only if you could show that being a Christian means you MUST believe gays hate Western Civilization and the Declaration of Independence.

    On the other hand, if you do NOT think that Christianity requires such a belief, there there is no anti-Christian sentiment in BofA’s decision.

  21. September 2nd, 2011 at 15:59 | #21

    By the way, I should point out that even if you argue that your Christian beliefs mean you should not marry a member of the opposite sex, they do NOT necessarily require you to support making it illegal for others to do so.

  22. September 2nd, 2011 at 16:00 | #22

    Lord, I’m tired. Naturally, that last post should read, “even if you argue that your Christian beliefs mean you should not marry a member of the SAME sex…”

  23. Paul H
    September 3rd, 2011 at 03:43 | #23

    Rob Tisinai :
    @PaulH: “the decision gives at least the appearance of anti-Christian discrimination or bigotry.”
    This would be true only if you could show that being a Christian means you MUST believe gays hate Western Civilization and the Declaration of Independence.
    On the other hand, if you do NOT think that Christianity requires such a belief, there there is no anti-Christian sentiment in BofA’s decision.

    You keep citing one quote from a radio interview, which I think you have taken somewhat out of context. It doesn’t change the fact that this quote wasn’t mentioned in any of the coverage of Dr. Turek’s contract termination. Based on what I have read, it appears that he lost the Cisco contract simply because he had written a book against the redefinition of marriage.

    And say what you want, but as a Christian myself, this decision looks anti-Christian to me. (Though of course, it could also be anti-orthodox-Jewish, anti-Muslim, or anti-socially-conservative-atheist, to the extent that members of those groups may also oppose the redefinition of marriage.)

  24. Sean
    September 3rd, 2011 at 06:39 | #24

    “Christians aren’t a minority and they aren’t historically maligned or marginalized.” Ever read a history book?”

    I’ve probably read a lot more books than you have, Betsy. The fact is, persons who identify as Christians are a majority in the US. Christians have never been denied a civil right, lynched, or harassed in the US. A claimed belief in Christianity has lead to the denial of civil rights for others, such as is happening now with marriage. You can’t play victim on this, no matter how you might try. Christian hate groups are plentiful in the US. I know of no group that advocates against Christians.

    Christians in America have a history of wanting to impose their perceived faith beliefs on non-Christians, and even other Christians, who may or may not want to practice some aspect of perceived Christianity. That’s why I admire the Amish, arguably the most biblically accurate Christian group in America, with their “live and let live” philosophy. No need to force others to live as you sometimes don’t even live yourself!

  25. Sean
    September 3rd, 2011 at 06:48 | #25

    “Homophiles aren’t a minority group. Sexual behavior doesn’t define minority.”

    It defines a majority and a minority. Sexual orientation is a defining characteristic for most people. If you want to test that, I invite you to tell a straight person you know that you assumed he was gay, and see what reaction you get. I highly suggest doing this in a biker bar, addressing a big guy drinking beer with his buddies. Or even simply suggest he has no interest in women (without implying that he prefers men for sex and romance).

    Most people would say their sexual orientation is a part of who they are, though certainly not the only thing, or even the major thing, that defines or describes them. Just as white people created a black minority defined and unified by its shared malignant experiences, straight people have created a gay minority defined and unified by a shared malignant experience.

    If you don’t like the gay minority, then you shouldn’t have created them in the first place.

  26. September 3rd, 2011 at 06:58 | #26

    @Rob Tisinai But it NEVER interfered with his job as it was never brought up and it was only ONE person who looked him up and learned about his views. That is not justification for firing.

  27. Sean
    September 3rd, 2011 at 07:03 | #27

    “similarly I and others have the legal right to complain about that decision, and to point out that the decision gives at least the appearance of anti-Christian discrimination or bigotry. I also am free to choose not to do business with those companies, and to let them know why I’m not doing business with them.”

    And your right to express your opinions, however they deviate from the truth or hew to an agenda, keeps the rest of us busy countering them.

    The internet is a great place to discuss issues, isn’t it?! But there is little accountability for factual information; anonymity becomes a useful tool for promoting factually incorrect notions and opinions.

    There’s no evidence that Mr. Turek’s firing was due to his espousing Christian beliefs, but because he vehemently opposed equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. If he vehemently opposed blacks having the right to marry, or mixed race marriages, he’d be getting far less support, right?

    I understand this guy is watching his consulting business falling apart and he’s upset at that. Who wouldn’t be? But it reminds us that words and deeds have consequences, especially in the Internet age. It’s hard to be a professional team-builder when you acquire a reputation for actually wanting to exclude certain people from the team, no matter what. Can you imagine a doctor touring the country promoting a new treatment for cancer, with the caveat that black people not be allowed access to it?

  28. bman
    September 3rd, 2011 at 12:45 | #28

    Rob Tisinai :
    Frank Turek goes waaaaay beyond expressing opposition to same sex marriage. …

    In what way?

  29. Rob Tisinai
    September 3rd, 2011 at 15:01 | #29

    bman, as I mentioned in point 1, 8, 9, and 20, Turek goes on the radio telling people that gays hate Western Civilization and the Declaration of Independence.

  30. Rob Tisinai
    September 3rd, 2011 at 15:03 | #30

    Paul H: “You keep citing one quote from a radio interview, which I think you have taken somewhat out of context. ”

    I always find it frustrating when people merely say someone’s words were taken out of context — and then stop. That’s an empty statement: to give it substance you’ll have to explain HOW the context conflicts with my interpretation of his words.

    Please go ahead.

  31. Paul H
    September 4th, 2011 at 04:28 | #31

    Rob Tisinai :
    Paul H: “You keep citing one quote from a radio interview, which I think you have taken somewhat out of context. ”
    I always find it frustrating when people merely say someone’s words were taken out of context — and then stop. That’s an empty statement: to give it substance you’ll have to explain HOW the context conflicts with my interpretation of his words.
    Please go ahead.

    You obviously already have made up your mind what he meant, and I doubt I will make you change your mind. And by the way, I don’t necessarily agree with what he said or with how he said it. I just think that what you have said here is not quite a fair representation. But I found the interview transcript pretty easily with a Google search. Others can find it too and judge for themselves.

    The more important point is that I have seen no evidence that this particular radio interview had anything to do with his contract termination. From the coverage I have seen, it appears that he was terminated from both Cisco and Bank of America only for having written a book that is critical of marriage redefinition. I am open to correction on that if more information comes to light, but that is how it appears based on the information available. And it is on that basis that I think his termination gives the appearance of anti-Christian discrimination.

  32. Rob Tisinai
    September 5th, 2011 at 19:14 | #32

    Paul, if you’re going to charge someone of something, you should be prepared to explain it. If you’re not prepared to explain it, then you shouldn’t charge them.

    Otherwise we end up with nothing but pointless and baseless accusations, and where does that land us?

  33. Paul H
    September 6th, 2011 at 07:54 | #33

    Rob Tisinai :
    Paul, if you’re going to charge someone of something, you should be prepared to explain it. If you’re not prepared to explain it, then you shouldn’t charge them.
    Otherwise we end up with nothing but pointless and baseless accusations, and where does that land us?

    Hi Rob,

    I notice that you are sidestepping the main point of my comment, in order to fixate on the side issue of how we should interpret something that Dr. Turek said in a radio interview. You interpret it one way, I interpret it a slightly different way, and I don’t think that any amount of back-and-forth discussion here is going to change that. As I said, people can read the interview and judge for themselves, which you and I already have done.

  34. Heidi
    September 6th, 2011 at 12:34 | #34

    Mr. Turek has asserted that “homosexual behavior is destructive to those that engage in it and to the public in general.” The guy also believes that if we as a society allow for marriage equality, that we will see even more gay people, as if being gay were contagious. He has spouted ignorant and false views about gay people, and if he had his way, he would have us all go back into the closet.

    http://www.impactapologetics.com/free/SameSexMarriage.pdf

    Yeah, definitely want that guy on my diversity-training team. NOT! He even belittles diversity training that is in favor of accepting LGBT persons as part of the team!

  35. Rob Tisinai
    September 6th, 2011 at 16:38 | #35

    Thanks for the link, Heidi. I hadn’t realized Turek was citing Paul Cameron to make his case. So now it appears Turek is spreading thoroughly-debunked lies in order to advance his political agenda against a law-abiding group of citizens, some of who work at Cisco and Bank of America.

    No wonder they don’t think he’s qualified to teach “leadership” and “team-building”!

  36. Leo
    September 7th, 2011 at 09:01 | #36

    So Dr. Turek should be banned from employment because of his political orientation? Has he broken any laws or company policies? Are there any employees to B of A and Cisco who agree with him? Should they likewise be banned from the premises?

  37. Paul H
    September 7th, 2011 at 11:03 | #37

    @Heidi
    @Rob Tisinai
    Hi Heidi and Rob,

    I read a few pages of the PDF file that Heidi linked. I am sure that both of you disagree with Turek’s views in that file, but what is it specifically about his views as stated there that you think should disqualify him from teaching leadership and team-building at companies such as Cisco and Bank of America?

    Heidi, you mentioned that he spouts “ignorant and false views.” But the examples of his views which you mentioned (such as homosexual behavior being destructive) are not clearly and obviously false; in fact, a plausible argument can be made that they are true. In other words, you conclude that his views are false, but not all reasonable people reach the same conclusion.

    Rob, you had a problem with a particular source that he cited. If he truly did cite an erroneous source, that is not good and should be corrected. But why does that mean that he is not qualified to teach leadership and team-building seminars, in your opinion?

    And let me throw out a few more questions:

    I am sure that there are people who work for Bank of America and Cisco who would agree more than disagree with that paper. Should they be fired if they mention their views in a public forum?

    And do you think that my company should fire me, if I were to include my full name with my comments here on this blog? Or do you think that my company should fire me because a public search on my full name shows that I donated to the “Yes on 8″ campaign in California?

  38. September 7th, 2011 at 13:06 | #38

    Paul H: I certainly don’t think you should be fired for anything you’ve written here. Of course, I don’t know much about you or the work you do.

    But: If you were out there going on the radio and writing books and working as hard as you could to make yourself into a public figure by spreading thoroughly-debunked lies in order to advance your political agenda against a law-abiding group of citizens…

    …then it would be reasonable for a business that employs some of those law-abiding citizens to decide against contracting you specifically to teach team-building and leadership to the employees you have publicly slandered and defamed.

    It’s a perfectly rational decision, and this would be true whether the slander were directed at gays, straights, men, women, Catholics, atheists, evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, Asians, etc.

  39. Paul H
    September 7th, 2011 at 14:59 | #39

    Rob Tisinai:
    But: If you were out there going on the radio and writing books and working as hard as you could to make yourself into a public figure by spreading thoroughly-debunked lies in order to advance your political agenda against a law-abiding group of citizens…

    Based on what little I have seen of Turek’s work (mainly the PDF file that Heidi linked), I would strongly disagree with your characterization of his work. HOWEVER, given how you see it, I can understand how you feel. Thanks for your reply.

  40. Rob Tisinai
    September 7th, 2011 at 19:00 | #40

    Thanks Paul, I appreciate that.

  41. bman
    September 8th, 2011 at 12:23 | #41

    Heidi :
    Mr. Turek has asserted that “homosexual behavior is destructive to those that engage in it and to the public in general.”

    I think this should be understood in an abstract and non-personal sense, much the same way we would regard a statement that abortion, pornography, or adultery were harmful to those who do it and to the public.

    The guy also believes that if we as a society allow for marriage equality, that we will see even more gay people, as if being gay were contagious. He has spouted ignorant and false views about gay people…

    A word search on the article did not find the word “contagious.”

    So, its uncertain what you are exactly calling “false” or “ignorant.”

    You might be creating a strawman argument. There is no way to tell, however, unless you quote the actual statement.

    However, the idea of a behavior being “contagious” if its condoned by society or government is not far fetched.

    Declining marriage rates, increasing rates of adultery, divorce, abortion, unwed child births, teen pregnancies, single parent households, welfare rolls, juvenile delinquency, unwanted children, pornography, increased prevalence of homosexuality, general sexual irresponsibility, illicit drug use and more, all seem to have spread as if they were “contagious.”

    Also, your objection is based on a “hypothesis” you hold, so even if he said it was “contagious” its not like you could factually refute it.

    There is also marginal research emerging that the brain actually re-wires itself in response to how one interacts with their environment.

    Addictions to pornography, for example, are said to result from the brain rewiring itself. Researchers call these changes “neuroplastic” changes.

    The wikipedia article on Neuroplasticity explains the overall concept. Emphasis is added to clauses that could theoretically apply to homosexuality.

    Neuroplasticity is a non-specific neuroscience term referring to the ability of the brain and nervous system in all species to change structurally and functionally as a result of input from the environment. Plasticity occurs on a variety of levels, ranging from cellular changes involved in learning, to large-scale changes involved in cortical remapping in response to injury. The most widely recognized forms of plasticity are learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage….

    During most of the 20th century, the general consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by new findings, revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood….Neurological research indicates that experience can actually change both the brain’s physical structure (anatomy) and functional organization (physiology).

    One of the fundamental principles of how neuroplasticity functions is linked to the concept of synaptic pruning, the idea that individual connections within the brain are constantly being removed or recreated, largely dependent upon how they are used. ..

    Control studies show that these changes are not caused by sensory experience alone: they require learning about the sensory experience, and are strongest for the stimuli that are associated with reward, and occur with equal ease in operant and classical conditioning behaviors.

    [Researchers] separate manifestations of neuroplasticity into adaptations that have positive or negative behavioral consequences. For example, if an organism can recover after a stroke to normal levels of performance, that adaptiveness could be considered an example of “positive plasticity”…. obsessive-compulsive disorder[s] are deemed examples of “negative plasticity”…as the synaptic rewiring resulting in these behaviors is also highly maladaptive.

    So, its at least hypothetically possible that homosexual behavior can be just as contagious as the other things listed, and addictive like pornography, as more people are placed in an environment that rewards maladaptive behavior.

    http://www.impactapologetics.com/free/SameSexMarriage.pdf

    The article at that link provides a very comprehensive response to the same sex marriage issue.

    Have you seriously tried to refute even one point in it?

    Your “pointing at it” as if it was an example of crude only shows what “your” opinion of it is.

    You totally ignored the process of dealing with the substance of it, or the facts and reasoning contained in the article.

    Overall, its an excellent article that I think everyone should bookmark and give out to undecided voters, or to quickly confront gay activists with a comprehensive rebuttal in online blogs.

Comments are closed.