Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[drumdude]

The context there is that it's quid-pro-quo. John tells Anne she must have sex to keep her job, and Anne either accepts or rejects that.

John telling Anne they're breaking up isn't quid-pro-quo. There's no behavior to accept or reject.

Quid pro quo is one of several sexual harassment dynamics. It's not the only one. Absence of quid pro quo does not necessarily equal absence of harassment.

Apple's policy follows exactly the established case law and federal definition on sexual harassment. Open Stories Foundation's current policy is not standard, and not based on any case law. That's one of the points Anne makes in her blackmail letter, is that she would like to get the law to broaden their definition to fit her in.

[Lem]

Let's take a look at Apple's sexual harassment policy. You know, one of the largest corporations in the world.

If Open Stories Foundation had the same sexual harassment policy in place that Apple has today, would John have violated it? Note that nowhere in Apple's policy are relationships between subordinates and superiors prohibited.

I'd say it could reasonably be argued that an employment decision was made based on an individual's submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.

In essence, it appears, JD, and/or the board, facilitated her termination (made an employment decision) based on submission to or rejection of sexual verbal and physical conduct.

Good point.

[Kishkumen]

And I've repeatedly made the point that in situations of abuse, many people don't realize they are being abused until they are separated from the abuse. Lots of victims blame themselves and/or are made to think they are the one actually at fault.

You clearly have zero experience researching these really complicated issues, so you should really just sit this out.

Martha Nibley Beck didn't realize her father was a pagan Egyptian priest who molested her until she went through hypnotherapy. That also wasn't true. I go by evidence, not a model that accommodates sudden ex post facto revelations of things that did not happen to get revenge with the help of obsessed haters like you.

[jpatterson]

I think the record shows Rosebud got fired because she continued to ask for a sexual and romantic relationship after JD refused.

Not at all. I know the above is John's defense. You really don't need to keep repeating his line of defense. We get it.

The FULL record shows a very different story, actually. The above statement completely ignores the incredibly relevant insight into JD's mindset that JD himself gives us in his Aug 10 email to Rosebud.

Let's just concede for a moment that John's carefully edited text message conversation with Rosebud that he released do indeed constitute her pressuring him for sex. There's more context there that John is intentionally hiding, but I'll leave that point on the table for now.

Those texts are between late July and Aug 9.

On Aug 10, John send Rosebud an email telling her he wants her to leave. In the email, he admits to several things: that he manipulated her into a romantic relationship, that he still has feelings for her, and most of all, that the two were mutually "faux sexting" just the night before....which was Aug 9!

John didn't say "I didn't like how you were propositioning me." He didn't say "I want you to stop asking to have sex with me."

HIs Aug 10 letter is a long diatribe about how he can't work with her anymore because he's too in love with her.

Your bias towards John's story is so glaring. At least I've been clear about which side I'm on. You're still pretending you're looking at this impartially.

[Kishkumen]

Apple's policy follows exactly the established case law and federal definition on sexual harassment. Open Stories Foundation's current policy is not standard, and not based on any case law. That's one of the points Anne makes in her blackmail letter, is that she would like to get the law to broaden their definition to fit her in.

And you will find that we will be going the rounds with these folks for eternity because they will say "x" is the only true definition of sexual harassment. You will say "y" is also a reasonable definition of sexual harassment (and guess what, under this one JD did not sexually harass Rosebud), and then they will go back to "x" being sexual harassment, and JD technically did it according to their definition, and if you were only well informed you would agree with them and stand up for "survivors" (oh, so dramatic!) of the bad man JD.

[jpatterson]

Apple's policy follows exactly the established case law and federal definition on sexual harassment. Open Stories Foundation's current policy is not standard, and not based on any case law. That's one of the points Anne makes in her blackmail letter, is that she would like to get the law to broaden their definition to fit her in.

Not sure how else to explain this, but Apple's policy means absolutely zilch in evaluating how Open Stories Foundation conducts its business.

Nobody made John and Open Stories Foundation adopt stricter policies than necessary.

[jpatterson]

And you will find that we will be going the rounds with these folks for eternity because they will say "x" is the only true definition of sexual harassment. You will say "y" is also a reasonable definition of sexual harassment (and guess what, under this one JD did not sexual harass Rosebud), and then they will go back to "x" being sexual harassment, and JD technically did it according to their definition, and if you were only well informed you would agree with them and stand up for "survivors" (oh, so dramatic!) of the bad man JD.

Yeah, heaven forbid we define sexual harassment the way Open Stories Foundation defines it. The horror!!

[Kishkumen]

Not sure how else to explain this, but Apple's policy means absolutely zilch in evaluating how Open Stories Foundation conducts its business.

Nobody made John and Open Stories Foundation adopt stricter policies than necessary.

Not sure how else to explain this, but a non-existent policy also means absolutely zilch in evaluating how Open Stories Foundation conducted its business in 2012.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, heaven forbid we define sexual harassment the way Open Stories Foundation defines it. The horror!!

Heaven forbid, and yes, heaven forbid, that you ever get into a position where you can exercise your tyranny of retroactive application of law or policy to satisfy your own grudges.

[drumdude]

The proper response to John and Anne's relationship was to fire them both. Which the board did.

Then they offered John and Anne new positions to rehire them. John accepted, Anne rejected.

So what it boils down to is the anger that John was treated more favorably by the board, which they themselves admitted on Mormonism Live? Is James arguing they should have kept John fired and hired Anne back to run Mormon Stories?