According to the article, they fired him because Following further complaints, however, he was told that he would face a disciplinary hearing because managers at Relate Avon no longer believed he intended to uphold the policy. He was dismissed and his appeal was rejected.
Further complaints from whom? This looks like wrongful termination. He didn't necessarily, according to this article, do anything else in violation of Relate policy. Management just no longer believed he would uphold their policy.
Just like your complaint about the word "alleged" this complaint shows either an ignorance of the realpolitik that newspapers must operate in, or disingenuous to the point of outright deception.
Even when they win frivolous libel and slander lawsuits against them, the fight costs them so much time and money that they try to do what they can to avoid them to begin with, while still fulfilling their purpose of informing the public. Thus the frequent use of the adjective "alleged" when describing someone in an unflattering way. ("We're not making the claim, we are just reporting someone else's characterization.")
And the only thing reported as absolute fact are those things that both sides agree on (McFarland did refuse to counsel the gay couple; he was fired; and the reason that the company named for firing McFarland) or those things that they have first-hand evidence for. The statements that McFarland made and the actions that he undertook, or that he refused to undertake that resulted in his firing would have part of the disciplinary hearing. They are not quoted in the paper because the paper does not have a copy of the transcripts of the hearing.
Likewise, employers bend over backward to avoid frivolous lawsuits, and for the same reasons as the newspapers. McFarland was warned before his first firing. He was rehired while his appeal was pending, and he was not fired again until he had a full hearing. You can be certain that every step that the company took was documented and signed off on by McFarland as well as his managers.
One of the biggest employers in my area is a company that became famous for practical jokes (Whoopie cushions, fake vomit, etc) Over the years, tastes have changed and a lot of the gags that the company sells now are rather risque. Because "locker-room humor" in a mixed-gender business situation can be (and usually is) a symptom of a hostile work environment, when someone applies for a job with this company, the first thing they are asked to sign is a waiver declaring that they are aware of the risque material and understand that (especially in the Marketing and Merchandising (buyers) Departments) the locker-room atmosphere is a necessary part of the company culture.
That is why I can feel certain when I say I believe that McFarland took the job in the first place with the express purpose of forcing the company to fire him. He did so that he could get a settlement, and so that he could stir up the conservatives, to make sure the settlement was a lasrge one. McFarland is nothing more than a liar and a thief.
Tell them to call me. I'll gladly explain to these homosexuals that they are having sex issues because what they are engaging in is sin, and that the only solution is to stop committing the sin.
Treatment over and I met the terms of my agreement.
Since you are neither qualified as a "psychosexual therapist," nor are you familiar with the terms of McFarland's contract, I assume you meant that as a joke. I assume, but I don't know, because jokes are usually funny.