Subway tells Kurt Wild to take his five-dollar footlong elsewhere, thank you very much

"I just wanted to tell everyone that I was just fired from my work at subway because I have done gay porn. A customer said they wouldn't even eat there at subway anymore because of my past work and said that if I wasn't fired then they would boycott the store. What I say is, if one person can try to ruin me everywhere I work... maybe I should take a stand and boycott their store too if they can't let people's privacy be treated right."

^ the bolded part: maybe i am reading it wrong or whatever, but getting naked in front of a camera and then having sex with people for intent on making money is not what what i would call privacy. I can see why he was fired, but i also understand his view.....but really, porn and privacy don't mix.....unless he made a sex tape for his own private purposes and then it was leaked ala paris hilton. 

Employment anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people are only on a state by state basis in the US. Quite a few do have that protection now, but St. Louis (in Missouri) probably doesn't.

It's not like the poor kid was shooting a scene on the SUBWAY counter while taking sandwich orders.

The porn films he made aren't even shown in theaters, you have to subscribe to a site or rent on or buy one so it's not like there were posters of him having sex on the local bus shelter either.

The work Kurt did was LEGAL, he was of age and it's is personal business that has nothing to do with his day job.

I agree with Kurt, there wouldn't have even been an issue if the porn he'd been doing was with girls.   The customer would have been winking and nudging him to death and would probably have given him an extra tip!

Who is this customer who is so well-versed in the world of gay porn that they could immediately spot him ON SIGHT?! . "May I have a turkey hero with... OH MY GOD, YOU'RE KURT WILD THE PORN MODEL!!!? 

PAAALEASE! Talk about a hypocrite!!! 

If this customer is so well versed, and they think porn is shameful or GAY PORN is shameful, then why are they watching it?

If they're watching it, then that's means they can't think it's THAT SHAMEFUL!

The real issue is that NO EMPLOYER should have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body during the time when they are not at work as long as they aren't doing anything illegal that effects their job.

It may seem like a small issue but it has ramifications for lots of folks who do sex work (legal sex work ) while maintaining other more standard employment.

I hope some folks with some legal moxie will get behind this kid and help him make a stand.

I'm going to assume that he wasn't working there as a salaried employee.  Regardless, what other employment he holds outside of his working hours for Subway is irrelevant.  So long as his other employment is not illegal I don't see how it is a relevant.

I also agree that I'm rather curious as to how the customer would know he worked in porn, especially gay porn, without being a consumer of said porn themself.  The last time I checked gay porn was still not available on either broadcast or cable TV (unless you count Here I supposed).  Even more significantly, the person would have to have paid very close attention to said porn in order to be certain of recognition.  A lot of people have similiar appearances and I certainly wouldn't feel confident asserting that I know that a complete stranger was in the porn business unless they had some very distinctive feature that was unmistakable.

Even so, I don't see a rational basis for a complaint.  Is it an assumption that a porn performer is somehow "unclean"?  Because I somehow suspect that a lot of the people working food service jobs have fairly active sex lives regardless of whether they get paid for it.

It sounds like the manager that fired Kurt was just a wimp that panics any time a customer makes a stink.

I'm just bummed that doing gay porn doesn't pay well enough that you can quit working at Subway.

He should at least be delivering for Domino's. [cue saxophone] "I've got your extra-large pepperoni here, Mr. Johnson . . . "

The blog wants to give you a delivery.

You can fix gthe whole subway chain,  by sueing them.  The stupid manager will be fired. And they will implement a policy that protects their gay employees from harrassment.

And you can bet that if the customer recognized this guy, then that customer has been beating his meat over the guy's porno videos.   He is terrified others will find out the truth about him.  And that shows just how diabolical the Christian fascists are in inventing the closet, getting the very people they hate to support them.  Hitler could have taken lessons from them.

And find me the guy who complained.  I'm well past prime age for any kind of porn,  but I'll be glad to use my slr to send him some pixs to make him happy.  And put his pix and name on my website. HE HE

How does a man -- who is so opposed to porn that he will not patronize a business that hires some one who is involved in it -- gain the ability to recognzie porn actors.

It is also interseting that when a gay man is fired -- or kicked off the board of a gay porn webpage -- for donating money to McCain the gay conservatives scream injusice.  But now it is probably the liberals screaming injustice.

I would think that both examples are injustices or neither one of tem is.  In terms of the law, the employer will probably argue in court -- if it gets to that -- that it was about the porn and not anything gay or related to sexual orientation.

I think Law and Order did an episode once, a few years back, about gay-for-pay and they did not depict an especially pleasant workplace.

http://www.geocities.com/edwardtjbrown

Guarantee his sales just went up 80%. I say it's a publicity stunt that everyone just bought into.

Who's seriously gonna recognize the guy if they aren't into gay porn? And even if they are... who's gonna recognize the guy? Really.

It was either some guy who had a major crush on the guy and found out he was married, so had no chance and was pissed off that he bought into it.

OR... the guy who complained to Subway was Kurt himself or a friend trying to boost his publicity and sales, cuz obviously Subway doesn't pay enough to live off of.

Or some bitter old queen thought he was going to have sex with a pornstar by threatening that to tell his employer about his pornpast.A closeted gay man would not out himself over this i think.

Anyway even if there are laws against discrimination for LGBT or any minority group its very hard to proof this most of the times, but in this case its pretty obvious.

Subway is going to give Mr. Wild a far bigger pay day for discrimination than it ever would have lost in sales to a few disgruntled customers.  I used to go to Subway several times a week since it was the closest fast food place to my office.  And we often ordered out for lunch meetings.  That all stops now.  I am sure we gave them far more business than that customer ever did.  Their loss.

Did they ever stop and ask why the customer recognized him?  Maybe they were closeted and self-loathing.  As you know good christains, never drink, abuse their souses and children, skip church, kill animals, or look at porn.

This is the height of hipocrisy.

I would write to the president of Subway if I knew mr. Wild's name and or the store he actually worked at.  Anywone care to join me?

I think Kurt was discovered by some bitter queen who thought that guys who do porn will do anyone who discovers them in real life.  Sort of like those Lucky Charms commercials when the kids catch the... Oh you know what I mean!

More in likely, Kurt wasn't interested in sex with the customer and the customer, like a bitter queen, retaliated.

As for discrimination, it doesn't appear it was because he was gay, but because he was a porn star.  One of the hazards of doing porn is that you give up your right to privacy.  Hence, most people don't perform in porn because they want that right to privacy.

Kurt claims to be straight.  So to run behind the gay discrimination skirt, seems to be odd.  I really never met someone who did gay porn that was 100% straight.  In fact, I've met a lot of confused bisexual guys that couldn't understand why they enjoyed having sex with men, but felt they had to justifying by claiming to be paid or drunk.  One closeted gay performer admitted to me that he watched straight porn on set, not to get him erect -- but to keep the allusion that he was totally straight and thus paid more.

Thanks to those before me who have mentioned the damage to ones reputation that working at Subway might cause.  ;)

If the guy claims to be a straight married father (as a previous poster suggested) when not "performing", then he certainly can't claim discrimination based on orientation.

Regardless, HE made a decision to "act" in porn.  Whether he "needed the money" or was an aspiring actor who couldn't land any other roles is his business.  HE did it.  Businesses generally do not look kindly on developing a bad reputation as a result of their employees extra-curriculars.  What about smokers who are forbidden to smoke in their homes or elsewhere away from the workplace or risk termination?  Unfair?  Maybe.

When you accept employment, you accept the terms of the employment.  It is your responsibility to adhere to them, when they are not otherwise covered under discrimination laws.  Guys (and girls) who plaster their naked faces and and naked naughty bits in videos or pics or who post "objectionable" material where it could be found now or later take that risk.

Look how long it took Vanessa Williams to rebound from the Playboy pics.  Did she think at that time she would become Miss America?