Being gay has absolutely NOTHING to do with what is work appropriate or what is not. BUT, if your company did not set down rules as to appropriate attire for costumes beforehand, then it seems he just took the bit and ran with it.

Too bad they didn't actually boil the baby in real life...now that would have been a great costume.

Costumes were to be "work appropriate". Specific costume rules were not laid out, but I can guarantee that our general work attire guidelines expressly forbid "visible thong-ass".

I don't bear any ill will towards him for getting away with it (though I question his judgement for deciding to do it in the first place). What irks me is that people seemed to have decided to give him a pass due to his sexuality.

And, that is actually a form of discrimination.

I really wanted to give GD mojo for that...but the evil machine won't let me for some reason.

Poor judgement and not work appropriate. I find it very sad he was given a pass go based on the comments you heard. Sexuality does not matter in this case one little bit. As NA pointed out, that is a form of reverse discrimination and opens up a hornets nest to me which I won't start commenting about here ;)

Anyway, I do love the kid as the lobster, that's a riot. :snap:

I'm telling you, babies get away with murder!

So, now that you know there are no rules about "work appropriate" what will you be next Halloween?

What kind of sick twisted male would dress up in women's clothing for Halloween?!?

Also, we are making the assumption that he was given a pass because he's gay when, as I understand it, it was simply office scuttlebutt that he is (a) gay, and (b) getting away with it because of that.

Was it his (your) superiors who made that overheard, off-hand comment ... or merely co-workers?



(and thank god this thread wasn't around to give Kevy any ideas before the Halloween party.)