This is why we need the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
An Idaho court decides that when spreading God's love becomes harassment, it's okay to shit-can the offending party. We've had this same issue where I work and HR just tells us to suck it up in the name of religious tolerance. It's encouraging to know that there are judges out there with the balls to stand up to those preach hate as love in the workplace.
"After Hewlett-Packard put up posters meant to encourage acceptance of gay people, Richard Peterson, a worker in the company's Boise, ID, office, decided to "retaliate" by posting scriptures that he considers to be gay condemnatory, on his work cubicle, in plain view of everyone. After some employees complained, Peterson admitted to his managers that the passages were "intended to be hurtful. And the reason [they were] intended to be hurtful is you cannot have correction unless people are faced with truth." He went on to flat-out admit that he hoped LGBT employees "would read the passages, repent, and be saved."
Despite this obviously out-of-line behavior, Stephen's managers didn't even fire him. Instead, they gave him some paid time off to think about his options. But what did Peterson do upon his return? Well, he went right back and re-posted the anti-gay passages, indicating that he would only remove them if H-P removed the pro-acceptance poster. So at this point H-P, completely out of all other reasonable options, had no choice but to fire Mr. Peterson for insubordination.
Peterson tried to make legal hay out of the matter. However, he of course lost in court. That's because the court, like any reasonable person, saw the clear difference between a poster about accepting your co-workers and passages that are intended to hurt the same. Call them anal if you must, but most CEOs prefer a workforce that is able to complete their 9 to 5 days without being told they are spending 10 to eternity in fiery damnation! And in this case, the courts fully saw that H-P higher ups fired Peterson not because of his religious beliefs, but rather because he violated the company's non-harassment policy."