Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Why I’m not cheering the termination of Vante’s CFO for his anti-Chick-fil-A political stunt

Why I’m not cheering the termination of Vante’s CFO for his anti-Chick-fil-A political stunt

A number of readers have alerted me to this video, which originally was posted on YouTube by Adam Smith, the Chief Financial Officer of medical products maker Vante (via Gateway Pundit):

Why pick on a drive-through window clerk?  The video seemed to capture in minutes the entire bullying methodology of the left.

Needless to say, the reaction has been substantial.

Now the person in the film, Adam Smith, has lost his job (unclear if he resigned or was fired, but clear what the cause was)(h/t reader John):

TUCSON, AZ–(Marketwire – Aug 2, 2012) –  The following is a statement from Vante:

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.

The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.

I just can’t cheer.  Yes, he brought it on himself.

But aren’t many of the arguments you can make in favor of the termination just variations on the arguments used against conservatives all the time?  Where to draw the line certainly is a problem.

Or am I just drawing a false moral equivalence?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


[quote]I just can’t cheer. Yes, he brought it on himself.

But aren’t many of the arguments you can make in favor of the termination just variations on the arguments used against conservatives all the time? Where to draw the line certainly is a problem.

Or am I just engaging in moral equivalency?[/quote]

Saw this story and chose not to tweet it for the same reasons. I remember my own outrage that Hank Williams Jr. was fired by ESPN after his comments on Fox & Friends . . . and I remember my outrage at other such “successes” by the intolerant left. Granted, this wasn’t forced by conservatives, but . . . yes, it’s hard to cheer for his losing his job.

ambivalent works for me.
he was free to act stupid, we are free to show people the proof of the stupidity he posted, they are free to fire him.

    It’s like one of my philosophy professors once pointed out in one of his lectures. All men everywhere are free at all times to do what ever they choose. The only difference between exercising your rights in a free society versus a tyrannical society is the consequences exacted by society.

    No one has a right to expect that they can behave this crudely and suffer no consequences. The consequences were appropriate. Good for Avante.

a private employer looked at the actions of one their employees and decided to terminate them. i’m not sure that your hand wringing is justified.

I’m not cheering, but I’m not gonna lose any sleep over it either. I have better things to waste my outrage on.

I recall a great story from Bill Bennett. He was seated next to a gentleman (putatively) on a flight. Dr. Bennett observed this man berating and rudely treating all the flight attendants who he came in contact with during the flight.

As they were about to deplane, Dr. Bennett asked the man for his business card, which the man happily produced (being aware that Dr. Bennett was a luminary of some degree).

Dr. Bennett explained he intended to call the president of the rude man’s company, to let him know how he had treated people who could not respond.

I have NO issues with this puke being fired. I would have done it in a heartbeat.

    Aggie95 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    as a side note can you imagine the mail they must have received

    persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | August 2, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    I wonder if he got a release from the young lady to use her personna in that way on You Tube?

    He got what he deserved, IMHO, and I’m going to nominate him for the Forrest Gump Lifetime Achievement Award–“Stupid is as stupid does!”

      Ragspierre in reply to persecutor. | August 2, 2012 at 7:23 pm

      I think the Woodrow Call Branding Iron award; “I hate rude behavior in a man. I won’t tolerate it.”

      (My all-time favorite scene in a great Western.)

    Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | August 2, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    I couldn’t agree with you more. This puke (I like that term in this case) was picking on someone who was in a completely different power bracket and was unable to defend herself.

    Actually asshole-puke would be even more appropriate.

Conservative Beaner | August 2, 2012 at 6:44 pm

I believe in free speech and if Mr. Smith would have been a lower level employee he may have gotten away with it. As an officer of a company he could bring bad press against Vante and that could affect sales.

    There is nothing wrong with terminating him for behaving like an ass. It has nothing to do with his free speech rights or views. He drove up to that window to waste that woman’s time, and sought to harass her. And then he put her on youtube. Did he ask permission before trying to use this innocent employee as his negative prop? She was captive at that window, and just doing her job (and well, I might add.) This isn’t a situation in which she did something newsworthy, or deliberately placed herself into a political arena.

    In addition, let’s make a distinction between a private citizen or employer’s choices, and the act of government officials.

    Count me in as cheering.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | August 2, 2012 at 7:20 pm

      So much confusion…

      We have a RIGHT to our freedom of speech as against GOVERNMENT.

      There is no right to free speech as against any person or company. See Thomas, Helen.

      Further, we have no LICENSE to speech. We MUST face the consequences for what we say…or DO.

      As a pretty smart man (me) wrote many years ago, Responsibility is the coin that redeems freedom.

    this is not a free speech issue, there was no government trying to stifle him.
    he did something his company did not like,they fired him.
    an at will employee.

If he’s in a position of power, whether as CFO or a customer, and shows a propensity to prey on the powerless, whether it’s a subordinate or drive thru girl that is a potential problem.

I can’t assume that he’s a jerk at work. But, unlike Hank Williams, this video was probably eye opening to his peers. Were I in HR at his business I would talk to those working for him, had I not already.

No problem here. Smith had the free speech right to be jerk and then publish his jerk-i-ness. His employers have the right to not want to be associated with that. As far as I’m concerned, he was fired for terminal stupidity.

This is a toughie. What’s the saying you legal tyes have…hard cases make bad law? I may not have a confident answer even after thinking about this; I certainly don’t have one offhand. Two observations cross my mind, though:

1. My instant impression, as soon as the video started, was that this guy is a smug, obnoxious jerk. I wonder if his employer was looking for a pretext to get rid of him.

2. His firing strikes me as poetic justice. The crux, of course, is that poetic justice is not necessarily justice.

3. (Yes, this is the third of my two observations.)

…we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

They have a point. Consider the military’s criterion of “conduct unbecoming an officer”.

I certainly must commend the senior management at Vante for taking the correct action. A solidly leftist oriented company – or the OBOZO regime – would have PROMOTED this neanderthal, rather than fire him.

Obviously not related to the Adam Smith who wrote “Wealth of Nations”:).

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | August 2, 2012 at 6:59 pm

He was an officer in a particularly responsible and sensitive position – CFO/Treasurer. He showed enormously poor judgement. He was canned for that… not for what his opinions may or may not be.

I used to work side by side with CFOs on a daily basis. None of them would have done something like this. EVER.

Not because of their political leanings and opinions, but because they understood that what they do and how they do it reflects on their ability to maintain trust, which is crucial for a CFO/Treasurer. Vante did the only thing they could do under the circumstances. And I assure you they would have done the same thing if he was a Tea Partier. It wasn’t a politics thing… it was a corporate thing.

    Every private corporation I’ve worked at has had a policy of “if you embarrass the company in public we can fire you” – for everyone, not just execs (but doubly for them).

Well I don’t know ….he was taking his angst out on someone who literally could not defend herself as she was on company time as it were and as a CFO he had to have known that and I am willing to wager a sum of cash that had she been anything but a stellar employee he would have gone to management to have her canned ….he is a bully the hell with him

I watched the video and was also upset at this jerk, but I also thought the young lady handled the situation with deft professionalism.

Freedom of speech and freedom to express those beliefs… Whomever pursued this further should have let it be instead of exposing, vilify and eventually the man losing his job, its disturbing and quite petty.

Chief Financial Officer… ha
Jerks in all walks of life, simply astounding but still … just words.

    donb in reply to OcTEApi. | August 2, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    “…the young lady handled the situation with deft professionalism”

    She should be commended. I would be in favor of giving her a promotion or a raise.

    In fact, if I were working in HR for Vante, I would be actively recruiting her.

I bet there’s more to this than we will know. If he could stoop so low and do the video in the first place, what else has he done?

“we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.”

In the Corporate white-collar environment the rules are quite strict with regard to company officers and their behavior conducted internally and externally.

Chief Financial Officers do not do what Adam’s did and not expect to face the consequences of his contractual obligations.

    syn in reply to syn. | August 2, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Note, he wasn’t fired for his opinion, he was fired for violating his company’s rules.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to syn. | August 2, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Absolutely. There is a retired senior manager type near me who retired early on corporate disability. He seems physically very fit but I’ve seen him almost come to blows with a local handyman over a passing remark. A contractor who worked for him also had a blow up with him over nothing. I suspect those tantrums are what got him retired. The days of the big bosses berating underlings is over.

I heard Chick-fil-a is hiring

    Aggie95 in reply to fedup. | August 2, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    he can start tomorrow when all the protests start and he can be the guy to hand out all the free water that I’m sure his vid will have given many just that idea to do to slow down the drive threw window at Chick – Fil – A

      OcTEApi in reply to Aggie95. | August 2, 2012 at 7:32 pm

      Free water is very nice, it shouldn’t be abused … here in Michigan we’re surrounded by water and you must pay for water at fast food joints… or they supply you with a mini Dixie cup sized free water which is barely worth the trouble if you’re truly very thirsty.

    Ragspierre in reply to fedup. | August 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Naw. He’s the kind who would spit on people’s sandwiches, or stomp in the lettuce bin with his nasty feet.

NC Mountain Girl | August 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm

The disparity between Smith’s position and the worker at the drive-thru window was key. He was angry at corporate policy so he berates the person at the very bottom of the Chick-fil-A food chain instead of writing a letter to the CEO. That begins to cross lines away from protest and into intentional infliction of emotional distress. It also makes me think Smith didn’t treat lower level Vante employees with the milk of human kindness.

I know if I was the head of Vante I’d worried about more than customer reaction. After all, a very public apology by Smith to the Chick-fil-A worker could cure that. I’d be worried about that viral video being used by an employees who felt that Smith’s verbal abuse of them crossed some legal lines.

It’s probably right not to cheer, but we can rest easy knowing we didn’t spend days, weeks, and months pressuring Vantes to fire him, as liberals likely would have done. Vantes made the choice on their own, that this was not the type of person they wanted in a high-level position. Quite frankly I can’t blame them, regardless of the politics of his position, I wouldn’t trust him as my CFO.

He may not be unemployed for long. He’s probably going to be hired by some liberal/left-wing company now.

I am not ecstatic about it, but if a conservative took advantage of a simple worker just trying to make a living for no other reason than to get their jollies, I would feel they should pay a price too. The girl was defenseless and he took advantage of her situation.

Let’s see if he has enough in him to apologize to her in person. If not, there is no doubt he got what he deserved.

The guy chose to make this particular video and chose to post it on youtube. He made very poor choices, and now his employer chose to terminate him (or encourage him to resign).

I’m not cheering because I wish the intolerant idiot had never made the video and posted it in the first place. But he did and got the boot because it reflected badly upon his employer. Soooo?

If this video is any indication of what this guy is like – and, given that he went out of his way to make it himself, with forethought and planning, it probably is – then dollars to doughnuts his company was overjoyed to get such a good excuse to turf him. Would you wanna work with the guy?

He’s fierce! I also love the fact that he disclaims being homosexual. He should have added the classic line “not that there is anything wrong with that.”

Prof, you’re missing the point. The point is not that he exercised his right of free speech. The point is that in doing so he embarrassed his employer greatly. You don’t do that and expect to keep your job.

Smith didn’t lose his job because he refused to kowtow to some organizational shibboleth, or because he stepped outside the arbitrary, shifting bounds of political correctness. Smith lost his job because he publicly gloried in his contemptible display of disrespect and incivility. It’s right there in the press announcement.

Smith’s intent in making this video is obvious: he was smugly joining in a self-righteous, nationwide campaign to silence the left’s political opponents. The left has no desire to debate issues in the public forum; no, they wish to suppress contrary opinion through the use of terror tactics. Every minute, every second that the American public can be distracted from President Obama’s alarming record of undermining our institutions and way of life is another win for the left.

If I had been Smith’s employer and had seen this shameful video, my personal message to him would have been perfectly clear: “Don’t let the door hit you in your obviously overdeveloped ass on your way out.” I applaud Vante’s courageous willingness to potentially come under fire themselves for doing the right thing and getting rid of this bigoted, hateful idiot.

    OcTEApi in reply to Robles. | August 2, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    You’re dismissing the obvious, that some very petty and vindictive people went out of their way to complain to his employer, probably a firestorm of social media driven complaints after being exposed.

    There are millions of jerks in the world

    all you’re doing is flipping the script “getting rid of this bigoted, hateful idiot” to self-justify

      Robles in reply to OcTEApi. | August 2, 2012 at 9:44 pm

      @OcTEApi, you’re misconstruing my comment. I was saying that, if I were an employer (which, by the way, I am), and one of my employees publicly acted in a fashion that reflected poorly on the company I had so lovingly built with my blood, sweat, and tears (which has happened in my company), I would not wait until I had received even one complaint from “very petty and vindictive people” before I summarily terminated the offender’s employment (which I have done immediately in every case).

      I would not (and did not) do this to avoid embarrassment or ridicule, or even to save face with my clients or customers. I would (and did) do it because the employee had shown himself to be a bully with poor judgement and insufficient self-control. It would have (and had) become obvious that my employee was incapable of thinking through his actions, and recognizing the potential bad consequences thereof. Such an employee is a loose cannon, just waiting to go off.

      In one such case of my experience, the employee in question had always curried my favor and treated me with respect, even deference. But I fired him on the spot after hearing him belittle an employee of one of our clients. If I hadn’t overheard him, I am reasonably certain that the incident would have gone unnoticed and unreported. But if he behaved one way when he knew that I might be listening and an entirely different way when he thought I wasn’t around, how on earth could I ever trust him to represent my company?

      It is true that the left frequently misuses labels such as “bigoted”, “hateful”, and “idiot” in their attacks against the right, and that is why I take particular delight in correctly applying such labels. Tell me, did Smith’s behavior strike you as “having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others” (bigoted)? How about “filled with hatred” (hateful)? Is he not “someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way” (idiot)? I chose my adjectives and nouns with extreme care.

      I have no need to justify either my opinion or my comment. This is not tit-for-tat. I’m simply calling ’em as I see ’em.

        OcTEApi in reply to Robles. | August 2, 2012 at 10:23 pm

        “I would not wait until I had received even one complaint from “very petty and vindictive people” before I summarily terminated the offender’s employment”
        -because the employee had shown himself to be a bully with poor judgement and insufficient self-control.

        Rightly so, but you’re still dismissing the fact that this video would probably have gone unnoticed if it weren’t for people setting out to make it a huge issue with his employer… with the implicit intent of forcefully seeing to the inevitable outcome they desired.

        I saw someone blisteringly berate an employee of Best Buy merely because they felt the store was too far from their home… nobody targeted that jerk for for destruction.

        Your wordy personal essay adds zip to the core debate

          Robles in reply to OcTEApi. | August 3, 2012 at 12:55 am

          Are we talking about the same video? The video that Smith himself took great pride in posting on YouTube? So far as I can see, Smith is the only person we can be certain could accurately be described as someone “setting out to make it a huge issue”.

          You assume that third-party busybodies exist, and that they played a crucial role in achieving “the inevitable outcome they desired.” I make no such assumption, basing my comments on the facts that I know or of which I can at least be reasonably sure.

          Remember what happens when you assume?

          Indeed, the entire premise that I have been trying to put forward is that — at least in this particular case — it was not overly-nosy shadow masses who dug Smith’s grave. He beat them to it by a long shot. There is no collective guilt for conservatives to assuage. As I said, I unabashedly applaud Vante’s decision. This is not schadenfreude at Smith’s demise, it is satisfaction in seeing a company do what is right when their officer’s misconduct comes to light.

          In much the same way, you brought my “wordy” anecdote on yourself. I didn’t lead with it because I originally believed it to be unnecessary for getting my point across. The fact that you completely missed my point made me reassess the need for delving into the story. I apologize if I caused you to go over your reading quota for the day.

          “I saw someone blisteringly berate an employee of Best Buy merely because they felt the store was too far from their home… nobody targeted that jerk for for destruction.”

          Did you just stand idly by and watch this go down? What about store management?

          I feel certain that the final outcome and consequences of this Best Buy attack would have been very different if (a) the irate customer had made a video of the incident and posted that video on YouTube to great fanfare, and (b) the bully was a C-level officer of an international company.

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | August 3, 2012 at 4:50 am

          Smith is the only person we can be certain could accurately be described as someone “setting out to make it a huge issue”.
          You assume that third-party busybodies exist, and that they played a crucial role in achieving “the inevitable outcome they desired.” I make no such assumption, basing my comments on the facts that I know or of which I can at least be reasonably sure.
          – it is satisfaction in seeing a company do what is right when their officer’s misconduct comes to light.

          Seriously, you’re that ignorant?
          They even went so far as to dig up the mans resume online…

          Your personal anecdote and flipping Smiths vitriolic words “bigoted, hateful” back on him, this is mere self-justification for condoning the targeting of this mans career for destruction.

          -to harm him economically for his words or deeds … simply no different than the actions of the left

It’s all about power.

Had he posted exactly the same type of thing talking to the camera from home, I wouldn’t have an issue. And I doubt his employer would either.

yellow rose of texas | August 2, 2012 at 7:22 pm

This was not the behavior of a professional CFO of a business. More to the story?

I have absolutely no sympathy for this bully. The company was absolutely right to can his sorry butt. He was a corporate officer and, as such, was a public face of the company. What he did to an innocent young girl is cause for termination, whether he did what he did because of his political beliefs or because he just enjoyed being a smug bully. I think it was probably the latter.

In addition, he must have been completely disconnected from reality to think he could post this video on YouTube and have no blowback. He had it coming.

Generally I, too, am troubled by disciplinary actions or terminations for expressing political opinions, and but for one teensy thought concur with the thread.

But possibly the hierarchy at Vante recognized the illogical delusion in their CFO’s rant and realized, suddenly, he lacked the intellect for which he had been hired.

Only a doofus – or an elitist who no longer thought for himself (but I repeat myself) – could equate hatred with non-support. That Smith so gleefully places himself in the company of those that fall for this fallacious assumption makes him a less than intellectually desirable company officer, IMO. They may have used the poor manners of the event as convenient justification to ease themselves out of a potentially ticklish situation somewhere down the line.

But to be honest, the though of an elitist felling himself by his own goal makes me ROFL.

jeannebodine | August 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm

I keep seeing this argument on conservative sites but I must be dense because I’m just not seeing this as a speech issue. It just seems to me that a company dismissed a corporate officer for actions that were ill-advised, obnoxious, reflected poor judgment and could (in fact, did) bring negative publicity and potential harm to the company. Aren’t corporate officer normally held to some sort of contractual standard of behavior to avoid harm to the corporation?

Anyway, that’s why I can’t really see what the danger here is for conservatives or why we’d be afraid to condemn bad behavior on either side of the aisle.

Also, what Robles said. Agree completely.

Let’ see what we have here:

-A high ranking officer of an international corporation, a grown man, well established in the corporate world, publicly berates a young woman.

-The young woman is at her place on employment, carrying out her assigned duties, and did absolutely nothing to provoke the verbal assault.

-the man then posts it on Youtube, for all the world to see–including all the business associates world-wide that do business with his employer.

Yes, immediate termination is both proper and necessary.

Oh, wait-

He did all this to further the gay agenda??

Well, in that case, nevermind.

That’s protected political free speech.

Is that about right, Professor?

    OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | August 2, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Yeah, how did his actions further the gay agenda?
    contemplated joining a sit in -oooh

    Seems vitriolic words did not further any agenda but more likely set it back.

    What about people who do not immediately dominate in a certain field and who get tossed off a roof… termination is also proper and necessary?

      creeper in reply to OcTEApi. | August 3, 2012 at 9:34 am

      TEA, do you think he showed the judgment necessary to handle large amounts of money? Would you give him signature power over YOUR checkbook?

    OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | August 3, 2012 at 5:23 am

    —-for all the world to see–including all the business associates world-wide that do business with his employer.

    10 million in sales and 50 employees is not that big of a company… but you are just another simply dismissing that the man was targeted at his work for posting his beliefs, although the words were vitriolic.

    what we have here:
    Is just more intellectually weak self-justification for engaging in the tactics of the left.
    Of course you believe you win arguments with thumbs up/ down approval so -nuf said.

      Robles in reply to OcTEApi. | August 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm

      You just don’t get it. You have called anyone who has disagreed with you here ignorant and intellectually weak, and accused us of rationalizing away the despicable behavior of unnamed busybodies who employ the tactics of the left. You are wrong.

      I have no direct control over anyone’s behavior other than my own. One thing of which I am certain is that I did not participate in targeting Smith. While I condemn them, I refuse to apologize or feel guilty for the reprehensible actions of those who agitated for Smith to be ruined.

      No, we don’t believe that arguments are won “with thumbs up/ down approval”. You have failed so far to offer a cogent argument with which we can take issue, so I would have to say that we haven’t actually been arguing; all you’ve done is whine and be stubbornly contrarian, earning you the disapprobation of your fellows — as indicated by the drubbing your comments have taken in thumbs-down votes.

      Bah. I’m finished with you and your whiny false contrition.

        OcTEApi in reply to Robles. | August 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm

        No, I called you ignorant for simply dismissing blatant facts to forward your argument of self-justification, then you attempted to muddy the water and garner public support by engaging personal transference of irrelevant rationalizations.

        anyone who has disagreed with you?
        Browndog is my personal friend, we debate, argue, disagree, call BS all the time…. he pandered to the crowd and garnered the response he desired, simply found no need to back up his opinion because he had accomplish his pile-on goal.
        You’re just an internet asshat. period
        Call’s em’ as I see em’

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm

It just so happened that right after I viewed the video, one of the first comments I read at youtube was somebody publishing the name of the company where he worked and a phone number. Then as I read more of the comments, and they were about 9:1 negative. I wondered if people would call to complain. I assume they did.

I’m not sweating it, though. The Left decided to go to war against Chick-fil-A, Rush, Fox News, Glenn Beck, ALEC, and others. Their goal is to cause economic harm to conservatives and to silence them. He chose to insert himself in the war that his side started and he became a casulty.

But aren’t many of the arguments you can make in favor of the termination just variations on the arguments used against conservatives all the time? Where to draw the line certainly is a problem.

I think that the comparison with the Hank Williams, Jr., termination is apt. In each case, the employer (Hank Jr. probably wasn’t an actual employee of the network, but I can’t think of a better word) stood to lose business (in Hank Jr.’s case, viewers and perhaps advertisers) as a result of the employee’s conduct. I, too, am bothered about where to draw the line.

Nothing is cheaper than to abuse a person of lower standing. Unfortunately, it’s quite common. It has been my fortune, for better or worse, to have worked closely with senior executives of Fortune 500 companies. They are, as a group, the most swinish, poorly-behaved group whom I’ve ever known. I had the extreme misfortune of working for the treasurer of a Fortune 500 company, who has since gone on to become CFO of several other companies. He was a liar, a bully, and a tantrum-thrower. Had I not just bought my first home when I was working for him, I probably would have physically beaten him to a pulp, which is what he deserved.

I have no pity for this man. In his position he should have realized he was one of the faces of his company. This video exposed him as someone who was anything but professional. I wouldn’t want him speaking for my company. At any rate, this video will be attached to that company whether they want it or not. The damage has been done. And I doubt this is the first time this guy has acted like a jerk.

theduchessofkitty | August 2, 2012 at 7:49 pm

[email protected]$$ who went to Chick-fil-A drive-thru to bully and insult pretty employee yesterday and put video on YouTube…

… filleted today by his (former) employers.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy! 🙂

Completely disagree. Mr Adams is not only an employee of Vante but a senior officer. He has a personal responsibility to refrain from any behavior that could reflect badly on his employer. There are plenty of alternative avenues available for Mr Adams to express his opinion. This is not it.

You may have a point that we shouldn’t be insisting that Mr Adams be fired. But Avante was damaged by this video going viral. Firing him was absolutely within Avante’s rights. In fact, it was very important to the company’s image that they make clear that Mr Adams’ actions do not reflect the company’s. Nothing makes that clearer than firing the guy. End of story. Avante is now in the clear.

Karen Sacandy | August 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm

I can’t look too deeply at this. It’s a free country; if his employer wanted to fire him for this, great! If not, great! If they wanted to fire him because he got a free water, great! If they wanted to fire him because they got tired of his ties, great!

Personally, the young lady handled it very well. I hope someone offers her a promotion.

That said,there are dozens of jobs I have never sought due to my beliefs. However, I’d have no issues working at Chick-Fil-A. If I’m offended by someone’s employment, I will occasionally say something. Depends on the situation. Usually some government-type. Tax collector… government bureaucrat…. someone wanding me and telling me to disrobe to get into a government building, that kind of thing.

I disagree. I don’t think our complaints of false accusations, smear campaign & a boycott is at all the same of this guy’s, Adam Smith’s behavior.

Adam Smith again did his wrong deed. First, he didn’t just make a demonstration on a false narrative and wrongly accuse the company of hate and intolerance, just because they don’t support gay marriage. They have no problem with gays, they don’t support gay marriage, like many gays don’t btw. And then he made a very mean and personal attack on Rachel, the drive thru attendant ( and she was so sweet), again, that’s what the LEFT does.

I wouldn’t want Adam Smith representing my company. He accused Chick Fil A of being hateful, lied when he said “just because a guys wants to kiss another guy” (FALSE)and asked how that poor girl could “live with herself” OMG All this with a false attack. He was the hateful one as EVIDENCE shows.

Actions have consequences, even my 14 year old son understands the idea. Yes, he should be canned, he is the CFO. What a moron.

Is he entitled to his opinion? – yes

Is he allowed to express his opinion? – yes

Should he even be allowed to post his video? That’s not why he was fired – read the statement again…

“In a manner commensurate with his POSITION and in a RESPECTFUL fashin that conveys the values of CIVILITY with others.”

As CFO of the company, the Board of Directors and shareholders have a certain expectation of the senior management. He failed to comply with this expectation and the employer excercised his rights as well.

As for Adam – he danced real close to the line, when the young lady stated “I’m uncomfortable with your videotaping this”….

Again, he is free to his opinion, but at the end, he started pushing his vitriol onto her…”i really don’t know how you live with yourself Rachel”.

At the end of the day, he is free to his opinion, and his employer is equally free to sever the working relationship.

terminated immediately…. to the point.

DocWahala – glad to see some in management are not afraid to hold others accountable.

    delicountessa in reply to DocWahala. | August 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    THIS: As for Adam – he danced real close to the line, when the young lady stated “I’m uncomfortable with your videotaping this”….

    Again, he is free to his opinion, but at the end, he started pushing his vitriol onto her…”i really don’t know how you live with yourself Rachel”.

    DocWahala is exactly right. He could see that she was near to tears and instead of backing off, he starts to berate her personally. He leaves saying that he feels good about himself for what he did.

    While termination may have been a bit drastic, the company was embarrassed by his actions. His name, address, email and all of the company information is every where. I have no doubt that the company was besieged with calls from people who saw the video and were upset by the way he treated the young woman in the video. I imagine he made his own workplace environment every bit as uncomfortable as he tried to make hers.

NC Mountain Girl | August 2, 2012 at 8:03 pm

Over at Ace last night the gang noted this guy had placed way too much info about himself on-line. His ID on YouTube and his e-mail address consisted of his initials, last name and year of birth. On social media he let everyone know he was a corporate level executive at Vante and adjunct faculty. His on-line resume posted at the University had his cell phone number as well as e-mail. He had to feature his own face in the video. He made it very easy to tie the video back to his employer.

Vante is a private company which likely hired Smith based on a set of understandings. Voluntary association.

Emanuel is a government executive who prevents business investment on the basis of political opinion, apparently without the consent of the governed.

Not the same.

    Doug Wright in reply to punfundit. | August 2, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    I completely agree! Vante is a private company, just as CFA and many other companies are. Vante’s action regarding Mr. Smith are fine with me.

    There’s a totally different set of conditions related to private companies or groups and governmental entities. Godfather Rahm statements regarding CFA should be strongly contested in the courts and Chicago should be taught a lesson that the private prejudices of its mayor cannot be reflected in how it acts towards CFA or other companies.

FME, Professor. The douchewad had it coming.

And I will absolutely update my post about it with the good news soon as I get home. “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind” to paraphrase Scripture.

And I’ll post as many happydance icons as WordPress will allow.

If he is, in fact, canned; a tweet earlier indicated the site still had him listed as CFO…

The article in the Tucson paper mentions that he served as an adjunct lecturer at the University of Arizona.

Being somewhat familiar with that outpost of mindless liberalism, I think he was doing some resume enhancement in hopes of going tenure track next semester.

Tomorrow is the kiss-in, think he’ll be back?

Watching Smith on the video, my guess is that: 1) this isn’t the first time he embarrassed Vante and 2) many of his fellow employees were probably glad to see him go.

Let’s face the facts: the guy is a jerk and there are plenty of CFO candidates who are not obnoxious.

I agree with you Professor. This guy made an ass of himself and has been mocked sufficiently. No need to ruin this guy’s life over this.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to imastrawman. | August 2, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    “No need to ruin this guy’s life over this.”


    Because he did such a wonderful job doing so, all by himself! 🙂

A couple of thoughts. First, I suspect that for Vante it boiled down to a question of whether they wanted someone that stupid handling their money.

And second, wouldn’t it be neat if Chick-Fil-A offered Smith a job?

“And second, wouldn’t it be neat if Chick-Fil-A offered Smith a job?”

Yes, reporting to Rachael.

Why make this jerk a martyr?

Adam Smith was not at Chil-fil-A in a professional capacity, so firing is probably a little over the top — of course, the private company can do anything it wants.

Vante could have simply put out a statement that the words and actions of its CFO do not represent those of the company.

The last thing we need is a boycott war.

    Anchovy in reply to Hepcat. | August 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Profitable companies also like to have officers that have a degree of self control and demonstrate good judgement. This case pretty well defines epic fail.

      Cassandra Lite in reply to Anchovy. | August 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm

      Indeed. When you’re a CEO and find that your CFO reveals himself to be a complete douchebag on Facebook, posting all sorts of idiotic and puerile rants, you necessarily question his judgment. And let him go. Because once you know, it doesn’t matter if he keeps his thoughts to himself henceforth. You understand that what you have working for you, watching your money and making financial decisions, is an unhinged personality with self-righteousness issues.

        Completely agree. If he was a janitor that no one knew, a good talking to would suffice. But this man is a representative for the company. He’d be gone in a heartbeat if he worked for me. I don’t tolerate stupidity.

      Agree. It’s one thing for an hourly or salaried employee w/o title to get terminated over something like this, but someone who is in a titled, executive position has a role in corporate leadership, and this should rightly be held to a more rigorous standard of scrutiny.

        spokker in reply to McCoy2k. | August 3, 2012 at 1:14 am

        Had Dan Cathy been a CFO at one of the many now pro-gay companies, should he have been fired for what he uttered?

          Evan3457 in reply to spokker. | August 3, 2012 at 1:46 am

          No. But he could’ve been. More likely, they’d send such a man for “re-education”.

          Did Dan Cathy film himself bullying a girl and post it on YouTube?

          delicountessa in reply to spokker. | August 3, 2012 at 2:31 am

          Perhaps if Mr. Smith had made a video of someone asking his opinion about gay marriage instead of actively seeking a confrontation with someone working at a drive through window, he would still have his job.

      Tamminator in reply to Anchovy. | August 2, 2012 at 11:35 pm

      My sister is an executive for one of the top 10 fortune 500 companies in the world.
      If she pulled this kind of stunt, she’d be fired immediately.

      There are expectations of propriety when you are a leader of a company. Period.

      The guy was an ass, TAPED it, then POSTED it on the WWWeb.
      Who wants a CFO who can’t control his infantile emotions?

    dstick in reply to Hepcat. | August 2, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Perhaps Mr. Smith will be able to find a new job at Solyndra! Barack will take good care of him.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Hepcat. | August 3, 2012 at 12:39 am

    As a corporate officer, he’s held to a different standard, especially as it relates to anything reflecting negatively on the company.

    It was in his employment contract. A DUI, domestic violence, an indictment, holding the company up to public ridicule or injuring ‘the brand’, etc. They’re all there.

The Hank Williams, Jr., episode and this episode are so completely different I fail to see how there could be any moral equivalence. I don’t believe Smith would have been fired had he publicly but respectfully expressed a personal opinion in support of gay marriage in response to a question, despite his apparently high social media profile. From what I understand, some Chick-Fil-A employees have already done so and are still employed.

Smith conceived, produced, directed and starred in a depraved ambush video engaging in not just a gratuitous attack on a company but a personal attack on a specific, if random, employee. Gotta be prepared for the consequences if you’re gonna go the premeditated video vigilante route.

I can’t celebrate his firing, but if it were my company I’d express by sincere regret with the pink-slip. Who wants someone so mean-spirited representing the company? I suspect this is not the first time he’s demonstrated his character.

This guy represents everything you need to know about the urban Leftist: the smugness, callousness, hypocrisy and the plain weird hateful disconnectedness from humanity. They’re supposed to be egalitarians and yet he picks on a fast-food employee? But just as a matter of unbecoming conduct the company was right to sack him without hesitation.

    Anchovy in reply to raven. | August 2, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    A 1%er showing his love for the other 99%.

    I live in Tucson during the winter. Unfortunately there is a large community of way over the line lefties there. Sometime if you think you are suffering from too many brain cells, go read the comments at their local paper online. One or two days and you should have eliminated any excess brain cells.

I don’t know that Mr Smith was fired from his Vante CFO job because of the You Tube video in which he acted the fool that he had every right to do. What I do know is that he included all of his personal data, employers, phone numbers, addresses, email, and company web sites on his You Tube acct page. I further know from working in corporate office environments that corporations do not appreciate being associated with the stupid choices and activities of their employees on or off the job. Vante probably fired Mr Smith for associating his views with Vante which, as it turns out, was exactly what Mr Smith was doing to the employees of Chick-fil-A and Mr Cathy.

Greg Gutfeld and others on Fox’s “The Five” give their take on the Adam Smith video.

Just such a horrible thing to do to a drive through food cashier. He should be ashamed of himself. A little man picking on a kid.

If I were in the market for catheters, I would totally buy-cott me some Vante catheters.

I’m not crying about it for several reasons:

1) You can try and reason with the Left until your face turns blue and not get through to them. We can’t stop this sort of thing from happening until it happens to both sides. God bless Vante for kicking that off. They say in their press release they’re a diverse company. Sounds like it may really be true with them.

2) He wasn’t just expressing an opinion the way the Right often is when bad things happens to them. He went to considerable trouble to harass an innocent employee. He couldn’t WAIT for the line to move so he could get his free water and unload on an employee who has nothing to do with anything. I think he’s probably a bully in other aspects of his life as well and this time he thinks he’s imbuing himself a noble motivation to what he wants to do anyway.

3) Given #2 above, for all I know the company wanted him gone anyway. Imagine this man on a day-to-day basis.

4) I really do believe a company should be able to fire an employee for any reason it wants. So sue me.

    G Joubert in reply to Beej. | August 2, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    3) Given #2 above, for all I know the company wanted him gone anyway. Imagine this man on a day-to-day basis.

    Yeah, I bet he’s a lot of fun to have around the house too. LOL

    Aarradin in reply to Beej. | August 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    I agree. There’s a huge difference between expressing an opinion and being fired for it (the typical problem conservatives have) and behaving like a complete (_|_) as this guy did.

    I think a large part of the turnout for Chick Fil A was a reaction against being subjected, for years, to the kind of vile hatred and intolerance spewed by this guy and not being able to do anything about it. People are fed up.

    The tactics this guy employed were entirely about intimidation. Just like with the Saturday Night Card Game that runs on this site. The object is to intimidate and silence the opposition. No one wants to be called a bigot, or intolerant, or a racist or any of that other vile labels the left has no hesitation in handing out to anyone and everyone that isn’t a zealot for their cause. Most people don’t know how to deal with it (defending yourself against “when did you stop beating your wife” type attacks takes practice – you are falsely accused with no evidence and then asked to prove a negative).

    So, yes, I celebrate him being fired for employing these tactics. The Left gets away with this sort of thing ALL THE TIME. Enough!!

Mr Smith deserves the respect of being treated as a conscious moral agent that can be held either praiseworthy or blameworthy for his actions. To not hold Mr. Smith responsible and thereby free of consequences would be to treat Mr. Smith as less than a human being capable of moral choices.

In other words, they did his ass a favor by firing him and showing that they respect him as a human being capable of moral choices and, of course, the consequences.

His termination letter should begin… “We respect you as a moral agent capable of moral decisions so much that we are going to allow you to clear out your desk, turn in your key to the executive restroom, and walk to the exit with the nice men from security.”

Personally, I AM celebrating his dismissal. We take endless abuse from little shit birds like this endlessly and meekly… ad nauseum. We take it from the MSM. We take it from the president. We take it from the political class.

They incessantly abuse us and our candidates. They have smeared us Tea Party patriots. They have belittled us, impuned our character and we just….take it.

That this smug little punk got taken down today makes me want to do naked backflips.

My old boss had a saying…The Stupid Shall be Punished.

And punished he was.

I don’t give a damn about this guy. He deserved what he got.

And when are we going to stop playing by Queensberry rules? We’re in a street brawl, people. They use brass knuckles. They have a concealed knife. They pick on little girls and publish it on video. They infiltrate and disrupt CPAC.

He’s an Occupy minded punk.

Screw him. And smarten up.

Hell yeah I’m happy he got fired. He is not an innocent. In the meantime his president has gotten millions fired for no reason other than this guy’s president decided to attack their industries.

VetHusbandFather | August 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm

Anyone else notice that the bullying liberal was a most likely wealthy male CFO of a medical corporation, while ‘assumed conservative’ was a middle class working female. This is a pretty stark contrast to what Democrats would like us to believe about conservatives and liberals. Thought it was worth pointing out.

theduchessofkitty | August 2, 2012 at 9:01 pm

That Chick-fil-A franchise should have a nice little picture frame with this quote, plated in gold for the whole world to see, just in case someone wants to treat yet another employee like garbage.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” – Galatians 6:7

Of course, here’s the twenty-first century translation:

“Karma’s a b!%@#!

Henry Hawkins | August 2, 2012 at 9:10 pm

False moral equivalence.

This guy didn’t act out of a moment of anger – he armed himself with a camera and filmed himself announcing what he was about to do, did it, then posted it. In the process he appointed some kid in a fast food window as representative of everything he is angry about, thereby depersonalizing her as he victimized her.

He absolutely deserved getting fired.

As someone who has worked in customer service, I am glad he was fired. Nothing more annoying then a customer who hates a companies policy/views/whatever and have some nut scream at you like you can just snap your fingers and change it. if a customer hates XYZ about a company here is a novel idea..DON”T SHOP THERE..p.s. he deserved to be fired.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 2, 2012 at 9:16 pm

After reading the excellent comments above, I actually think it would be hard NOT to fire him.

The judgment this guy demonstrated is horrible. Video taping himself berating a young woman working the drive thru window is bad enough. Then he posted it online for the world to see. That wasn’t spontaneous. The whole thing was planned and deliberate. Just atrocious judgment.

So how can the CEO and the Board rationalize to the company’s investors having someone with demonstrated poor judgment as the corporate treasurer? I don’t think they had much choice but to fire him.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | August 2, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Very true… he was hoping for a reaction that he didn’t get. The sad part is that he is still narcissistic enough to post his total failure. I’m expecting that tomorrows ‘kiss-in’ will have the same results. A lot of GBLT people finding out that the staff will treat them very respectfully even though they are trying to make a scene in the restaurants.

If I were the CEO of Vante, I’d have fired his ass as well. I certainly wouldn’t want someone who exhibited such a colossal lack of judgement operating as my CFO. Fair or not, your executives represent the face of your company.

Consequences for behavior.

Something the Left/Lib/Prog isn’t familiar with and probably don’t understand.

Good on them for canning him. He misbehaved. He brought unwelcome attention to his employer. And he found out that actions have consequences.

I am cheering and for one reason only:

When he asked the girl how she lived with herself for working there, how she looked at herself in the mirror (or something to that effect).

If he had left that out, I think it would have been iffier for me, but that bit of his comments totally crossed the line. It doesn’t matter the subject he was speaking about, he could have been a conservative saying something similar to a Target cashier and I would have fired him if he worked for me.

An executive making, I’m sure, 6 figures, thinks it’s okay to say something like that to a young girl probably making minimum wage at a fast food joint? I would have fired him so fast he wouldn’t know what hit him. If he talks to her like that I would wager good money he speaks to everyone “below” him like that.

I wouldn’t want that man working for me, or with me.

Purposefully deciding to cause a confrontation – with the tacit acknowledgement that he would behave as an unmitigated jerk – filming it, and then posting it? And you think Vantes doesnt have justification for firing/releasing/accepting his resignation?

    logos in reply to bains. | August 2, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Adam smith was trolling for an over reaction, which he intended to post to reflect poorly on the Chik Fil A company. No doubt, he was disappointed with the young lady’s mature handling of his baiting. Yet, he was too stupid to see posting his bully video would hoist him on his own petard.

I think you are too close to the tree, and are missing the whole wide forest.
An infantile liberal decided to make an ahole of himself, and his company made him pay for it. He was a company executive, after all. But even if he was a working shlep, why film it and post it? Where is his sense of judgement? Where is his sense of fairness? Where is the sense of propriety?

Today’s conservatives seem to attuned to complying with some theoretical pro vs con mentality. In turn that, (1) deflates the event, (2) blunts the lesson taught to this creep, and (3) treats the enemy by half. Have some compassion for the woman who was the target of his tirade, not the creep who decided to let it out.

Three generations ago, most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, would have chucked and mutter to themselves, “idiot.”

    Weirddave in reply to Ediv710. | August 3, 2012 at 12:42 am

    Thre generations ago, most Americans, of any political persuasion, would have punched Smith in the snoot.

    And I’m not convicted that we live in a better world because most won’t now.

      spokker in reply to Weirddave. | August 3, 2012 at 1:29 am

      You would counter speech with violence? You are as unbearable at the typical progressive.

      Whoops, I hope my employer doesn’t fire me for this post.

        Weirddave in reply to spokker. | August 3, 2012 at 2:24 am

        I see you’ve been trolling the entire thread, but what the hell, I’ll bite.

        Never in a million years would I advocate violence to deprive someone of their right to free speech. Adam Smith’s rude condescension, especially to a woman, however, would never have been tolerated three generations ago. He would have been punched in the snoot for being rude and uncivil, not because of what he said.

        But then again, you already knew this didn’t you? It’s the middle of the night, Soros got you working overtime? I hope you’re making time and a half, if not, you should start a union. I’m sure old George would love that, he being such a friend of the working man and all.

He is one of them. Moronically stupid, and full of hate and spewing it at an innocent young lady. It’s not like he is talking to an SS Guard at Auschwitz or something! But he seems to think it is the same.

I hope he is happy with all that extra time and reduced income he will enjoy while he looks for another innocent person to abuse.

Well done, Mr. Smith…

[…] Via Legal Insurrection: The person in the film, Adam Smith, has lost his job Vante regrets the unfortunate events that […]

I responded to a writer on another forum who was criticizing the patrons of CFA and his name was alongside the name of a high school he was associated with. I asked if the opinions he was expressing were his own, or was he speaking for his school? Adults need to be aware of what they are doing.

Holy crap read the comments on that YouTube video. There is some priceless material there. I can’t stop laughing.

I just got around to looking at this video and yes, there are incredibly stupid people out there. I hope that he enjoys his “vacation” caused by the above mentioned stupidity.

BTW, hope he knows that unemployment benefits won’t be coming as he was fired for cause. Oh wait… The anointed one might intervene on his behalf! OTOH, the young lady at the drive through window was terrific. Hope that she gets a raise if not a promotion.

Oh what a world we have woven…

I don’t think he lost his job for his opinion, he lost it because he was a jerk. There’s a lot of things you can’t discriminate against, being an A-Hole isn’t one of them.

1. Or am I just drawing a false moral equivalence?

With respect, I think you are. A number of commenters have noted that the likely reason for the firing is how Smith’s unprofessional behavior reflects on his employer. Snorkdoodle Whizbang put it succinctly: It wasn’t a politics thing… it was a corporate thing.

2. The disproportionate number of thumbs-down’s on this post is cause for concern. Passion and commitment are important in politics, but afaic True Believer behavior loses more elections than it wins. It was completely legitimate to raise the issue as you did.

By resisting the natural tendency of government to grow, onservatives and libertarians are swimming against the tide. To succeed, it’s essential to be in the right, not just on the Right.

Bringing a company into disrepute is for-cause dismissible behaviour for a senior officer. I’m not saying the company didn’t over-react, merely that they are almost certainly covered from a contract liability point of view. If he’d been a line employee he’d probably have been reamed out by his supervisor, but executives sign a piece of paper that nominally holds them to a higher standard. And for all we know the company might have been looking for an excuse to can him.

NC Mountain Girl | August 2, 2012 at 10:18 pm

I think it is important to distinguish between protected speech and bad behavior. No matter how exigent the political feelings that motivated such behavior the type of bullying Smith engaged in with a lowly clerk was way over the line.

nordic_prince | August 2, 2012 at 10:24 pm

The guy was a total crass act, and earned his pink slip. Customer service has its moments, like any other job, but it’s double-plus ungood when you have to deal with dipwads like this jerk. I hope the young lady gets combat pay.

I wonder if the fact this happened in Tucson is significant since civility became a big issue after of the Gabby Giffords’ shooting.

I’m not suggesting that Smith did, said or threatened anything violent. However, since civility was a major focus of the media and pundits after the Giffords’ shooting, perhaps Tucson residents and companies are extra sensitive about civility.

    Anchovy in reply to DRJ. | August 2, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    You missed the point in the push for “civility” in Tucson after the Safeway shooting. They meant for conservatives to be civil and start agreeing with anything liberals say.

I understand your point professor.

Knee-capping a knee-capper is knee-capping.

Adam Smith pissed off his boss and paid the price. It was a corporate business decision, not a politically ideological one.

It made Vende of Tucson look like jerks until they fired him.
Had he been a Vende janitor he likely would not have been fired.

    Anchovy in reply to VotingFemale. | August 2, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    Yet if the girl had told him to go screw himself, she would probably have been fired. This jerk needs to be held to at least the same standard a minimum wage fast food employee would be.

It would be interesting to poll business owners vs lawyers on this issue.

(Unless, of course, you own a law firm and one of your lawyers exhibits an extreme lack of judgement and jackassery, then posts it on YouTube.)

If the reputation of my company is harmed by the thuggish behavior of one of my employees, they will soon find themselves in the unemployment line.

listingstarboard | August 2, 2012 at 10:33 pm

Guess I am politically incorrect but I freaking love the fact he got fired!! Yay!!!

[…] bullying and abusive behavior. William Jacobson is not cheering the termination, and asks if he is drawing a moral equivalence somehow I just can’t cheer.  Yes, he brought it on […]

Nobody PRESSURED them to fire the guy. Most likely, nobody even knew who he worked for.

He claims in the video to be a “nice guy”. He’s not, he’s a DICK.

What goes around comes around. Everybody is free to have their own opinions, but companies are ALSO free to fire assholes.

Had the mayor of the Douchester’s city ordered Vente to fire the creep or be run out of town, it would be equivalent to the harassment leveled at C-F-A. Since Vente, which was embarrassed on a world-wide scale by this idiot, fired said idiot acting as a private corporate entity — no comparison.

KM from Detroit | August 2, 2012 at 11:12 pm

I think you’re drawing a false moral equivalence, Prof, like a number of the other commentators said. Vante’s statement lays out the exact rationale for firing him, and while I will admit I take some visceral satisfaction in his getting his comeuppances, I think Vante would have been derelict in their duty to have let this slide (or swept it under the metaphorical rug); they said everything I would expect them to say. They (Vante) may or may not disagree with trying to boycott Chick-fil-A, but CERTAINLY they should expect their employees to behave professionally, much less a CFO.

I am curious, though–what is it about his getting canned that’s a variation on arguments used against conservatives all the time? Maybe I just haven’t seen enough, ’cause it’s not obvious to me.

NC Mountain Girl | August 2, 2012 at 11:15 pm

Smith is now also appears to be a former lecturer as well as a former CFO. With all the anti-bullying programs pushed by the left Smith really isn’t giving them much choice.

Be at peace, professor. People don’t get fired for a single incident, but for the last straw. This guy is bound to have a history, and if his company is smart, they won’t ever mention it.

I would hope the University of Arizona takes a close look at this guy before allowing him back in the classroom. Can you imagine how he might treat a student that disagreed with his mindless and vicious liberalism?

    Anchovy in reply to Anchovy. | August 2, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Oops…. never mind. Mountain Girl provided a link to UA’s response a couple of posts up.

    She is always a step ahead of me.

Raquel Pinkbullet | August 2, 2012 at 11:41 pm

Professor, while I usually find myself in agreement with you, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Not only did this guy deserved to be fired but he also deserves to have his ass handed to him for abusing that clerk the way he did.

Behavior has consequences, this douchebag set out to embarrass, intimidate, and harass that innocent worker who in no way deserved to be treated in that manner and be filmed for a cheap political stunt.

I so wish my husbands fists could meet this guy’s face.

myveryownpointofview | August 2, 2012 at 11:49 pm

I have worked in sales and customer service for both big international, and little companies. The worst thing ever is a guy like Smith who decided to interact with you just to have an opportunity to attack you. I’ve dealt with many, many such “persons”. However, that was actually part of my job and I was specifically trained in how to deal with that professionally.

I doubt the kind and tolerant young lady had the benefit of the type of training that I was given, yet she handled herself as though she had.

What that mean bastard did to her there is no excuse for.

I am glad that the company fired him. Who would want a horrid person like that as one of the faces of their company?

Raquel Pinkbullet | August 2, 2012 at 11:49 pm

This douchebag got a taste of Karma’s sweet dipping sauce.

Corporate officer acts like a hateful intolerant douche bag, films it, posts it online, feels purposeful, and Karma pays him back in spades.

The stupid is strong in this one.

My blood is still boiling about this.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | August 2, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Good for the CEO of Vante for firing that of piece of liberal trash. He deserved what he got. It was just, fair, and exactly what should have happened, for once.

I hope the female Chick-fil-A worker has some sense of gratification and comfort from this bit of good news, at that reprehensible repugnant person’s behavior and actions against her yesterday. She should, and if not, then then I sure do, as I’m sure the rest of conservative America does.

Thank You Vante for doing the right thing, and sending the right message that bigotry, hatred, and intolerance in the form of their words and actions will not be tolerated against anyone.

BannedbytheGuardian | August 2, 2012 at 11:58 pm

I had great fun reading comments on this -the best were at Ace -where I have only been once before .

I have only read the newer posts here but my point of interference would be with his academic job.

He is a adjunct lecturer in company valuation for a post grad course. However he clearly demonizes ‘corporations’ in his rant.

I don’t pile on but I am hoping someone takes this up with the U of Arizona. Seems to me this is why American business is failing -when ideologues like Smith are teaching business.

I know MBAs are suspect but this guy just wiped out U Of arizonas single handedly.

They should call it Masters of Anti-Business.

I know the Professor will never read this far down in the comments, but I have to chime in with the majority on this one. It’s not so much his opinions, it’s his behavior that gets him canned. His actions reflected badly on the company, and poorly in general. He earned his firing.

Raquel Pinkbullet | August 3, 2012 at 12:07 am

On another note, I’ve long advocated the firing of employees who self identify as liberals, so to me, this firing is a pittance compared to what I’d like to happen.

And before before people start calling me a “fascist,” let’s not forget that the LEFT is at war with us, and will stop at nothing to destroy every last one of us.

And NO civility doesn’t work with the LEFT, as civility ONLY works with CIVIL people, and the LEFT has proven they are not CIVIL people.

    delicountessa in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | August 3, 2012 at 1:22 am

    You know, you do have a point. While I try to ascribe to the cautionary tale against becoming what you detest, there is a certain truth in what you say. We are called “haters” “bigots” and “racists” if we disagree with liberals; people are often harassed to the point of having their lives and livelihoods ruined and we do stand around and try to be nice and reasonable with not-nice, unreasonable people.