Nope...he did not DISCLOSE that information publicly...The publication did...The agency said so itself...

Now imagine if I even TELL you what company I work for...That's directly TELLING you...That's even more proof than an email address...

Would start equating everything I've ever posted as statements from my company?...

Of course not...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

If it's coming from your work email, then yes. It counts as representing the company. When I worked for a fortune 500 company, emails that were external had to meet a certain format and content. Internal was a different story, but when you are emailing from your work account you are acting as a representative of the company.

__________________

I'd really like to see you as an attorney saying...smack dab in front of a jury...

"The email came from an employee of company X that has nothing to do with their line of business, so my client firmly believes that because the email says "Company X" after "@", that MUST mean that whatever is said in that email is representative of the company itself."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Yeah, it's called misrepresentation. Companies have the ability to recoup losses from employees who misrepresent the company. In this particular situation, the fired man needs to collect damages from the publican that outed him instead of fighting with the company. He knew what he did was wrong at the time he did it. "Everyone else is doing it" is not proper justification for his actions. Our mothers taught us that with the bridge analogy.

__________________

We both should've caught this earlier...

I had to reread to actually see if mensweekdaily got the AllState infor from the article he sent...

He didn't...

The article itself was NOT written or sent through work's email...

This mensweekdaily wouldn't have known through that aspect...

But as I said earlier, they could've connected the dots because AllState has been "touting" the former boxer Barber previously...

I'm guessing there aren't too many former boxers name "J. Matt Barber" in the windy city area...

And there is no obligation to PREVENT a publication from coming to their own conclusion...

So there's no misrepresentation of the company on his part...The article received did NOT come from a work computer nor through work's email...

Now do I find the publication's public deduction a littel scummy?...I sure do...

But they could use the same defense paparazzi uses all of the time...They just dissected public disclosure...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Apparently both of our reading skills were limited there for a minute.

Well then the company cannot hold the man liable if he hasn't been sending information to these publications from his work email, but the article said that he HAD been sending information from his work email and so thus I linked the two. While this particular article was not, then this article cannot be used as his firing threshold.

__________________

The THINKING is that it is not a moral issue, but A LEGAL ONE.

There is no legal reason, not any state interest, in preventing same sex marriages.

And that trubles me, since "legal" is malleable enough to where someone can get charged with a felony for causing the death of a fetus, but in the sake of "rights" and "choice" a woman can drop into the "baby eradicators" and have one killed for a fee. I have issues with how malleable "legal" is. Different laws from state to state show just how jacked basing things on "legal" can be.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Different states have different laws.

Ultimately, since it is LAW that protects us all from the 'moral' beliefs of individual group beliefs, I say that it's a GOOD thing.

The rights of the states are CRITICALLY important, but it should not pull us apart as a nation.

Maybe so, but if "legal" was a concrete as some people want it to be, it should be based on something. All states having different ideas about something make you question exactly what a law is based on. And some laws blamed on "morality" are just based on common sense.

Then others, such as the aforementioned abortion vs. feticide laws just contradict each other.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)