Employee demoted, 40% pay cut, for Facebook comment

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If saying I am not happy about gay people marrying in churches is enough to get you the sack, is anyone on this forum safe from being sacked?

I can't speak for any of you, but my employer has no vested interest in what I say on this forum, and hasn't entrusted me with any job duties that depend on the values I express in this forum. So I'm pretty safe.

Now, if I was the secretary-general of the local socialist party, and they found out I was over here all the time vilifying socialism and advocating smaller government and less power to labor unions... They'd probably be entirely justified in removing me from my post in their organization, and cutting off the compensation commensurate with the duties of secretary-general.

[rjh01]

This is a good reason for keeping your private and work life separate. Have two facebook accounts. One you share with your work people and one you share with only your personal friends. Either that or never say anything on a controversial topic.

[Rolfe]

Since when did expressing the opinion that same-sex weddings in church are not something you favour become something worthy of being sacked over?

I'm seriously unclear in what way this opinion was related to his job anyway.

I look forward to the day I can attend the first same-sex wedding in my local church. I'm not holding my breath though, because I know a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the idea. The thought that these people could lose their jobs for saying so is absolutely horrifying.

Rolfe.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Since when did expressing the opinion that same-sex weddings in church are not something you favour become something worthy of being sacked over?

I'm seriously unclear in what way this opinion was related to his job anyway.

I look forward to the day I can attend the first same-sex wedding in my local church. I'm not holding my breath though, because I know a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the idea. The thought that these people could lose their jobs for saying so is absolutely horrifying.

Rolfe.

I dont know if it is an opinion related to his work or not... but it is an opinion that makes him a ****. While intellectually I agree that it probably shouldn't be grounds for sacking him I struggle to have sympathy for someone who would deny equality to others. Maybe offering employment rights to ****s is an 'equality too far' too?

If I was his employee and saw that statement i'm not sure I'd have the same working relationship with him in future.....moreso if I was gay.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I can't speak for any of you, but my employer has no vested interest in what I say on this forum, and hasn't entrusted me with any job duties that depend on the values I express in this forum. So I'm pretty safe.

Now, if I was the secretary-general of the local socialist party, and they found out I was over here all the time vilifying socialism and advocating smaller government and less power to labor unions... They'd probably be entirely justified in removing me from my post in their organization, and cutting off the compensation commensurate with the duties of secretary-general.

You hope. That is why this news story is so worthy of note.

[Rat]

Depending on how clearly it was spoken as an individual, I entirely support his right to say whatever he likes (within the law) on Facebook, and would hope for no consequences from his employer. If he self-identifies as an employee of that company/association on the same Facebook page, I have slightly less sympathy. That said, I've just checked, and I do identify my employer on FB, but I'm not too worried since I haven't posted there in years. If I ever go back there, I may well delete my employment status.

Having said that, it's still perhaps unwise to post things that are potentially controversial if your employer knows where you are online; while I don't think that anyone should lose their job over such things, or indeed be demoted, it's unrealistic to expect that it won't stick in the back of someone's mind when it comes to promotion prospects and the like.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You're right, Professor. It seems to be a case of Americans who believe anyone can be fired at the whim of their employer and they just have to suck it up. It seems it wouldn't really be any difference if the man had said he didn't like the colour blue, and his employer had decided that wasn't an acceptable opinion.

Rolfe.

Not all of us agree with this, now what I do know is this. You should be very careful about what you say about your employer on line.

Now in this case I am not sure which way it would go in the US, the person made a comment, that most likely did not have any impact on their employer. So it would come down to policy and procedures and then the whim of the employer.

And the problem in many cases is what the employer has documented. Especially with the term 'breach of contract', in the US that can mean something very serious.

"The father-of-two's Facebook comments were not visible to the general public, and were posted outside work time, but the trust argued he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers."

Now that is downright bizarre and likely to win damages here if you can afford the trial, and reinstatement. If he was not 'facebook friends' with a coworker then it would not matter at all. It would really depend upon the exact language in the 'code of conduct'.

In the US it would really vary as well, depending on the situation and the exact terms of the 'code of conduct', especially since the statement was made in a 'private' social network setting. You would be hard pressed to show how this would apply in the work environment, unless there is some really broad language in the code.

[geni]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"We'll remove you from positions of trust and confidence within our organization, if we discover that your actions do not inspire the trust and confidence we feel are necessary for those positions."

Yeah, that's really dangerous stuff, there.

It is. In the real world where people have financial commitments a sort prision sentence can be a fair bit less damaging than a single paycut.

Quote:

My point was that things said in a "private" context don't somehow magically stay out of the workplace simply because your co-workers weren't in the office when they heard you say them.

They why did you make in a way that suggests that office parties basicaly don't exist?

Quote:

If you're at a non-work event and your boss is also attending, and he overhears you remark--temperately--that maybe employees should take it upon themselves to share company secrets with third party watchdog organizations... You don't think he'll take that into consideration when you're up for promotion to a job that involves working with company secrets? You don't think he'll wonder if maybe he shouldn't recommend to his boss that you be audited for such behavior in your current position. You don't think he'll want to maybe remove you from a position that involves working with company secrets?

Err given than in my case the watchdog would be the Environment Agency that would be very foolish of them. We need the EA to think we are honest and open with them (and to be fair we are).

Quote:

Things said in "private" have repercussions. What happens on Facebook doesn't stay on Facebook. It goes wherever your friends go. If some of them are also co-workers, it goes to work with them, and with you.

Yes and traditionaly people in employment situations were adult enough to respect the chinese walls.

Quote:

And if part of his role was to represent the organization to its partners, clients, vendors, etc. and any of them were on his Facebook friends list, then his employers have a very real concern about whether he's actually embodying the values they require from his role.

He's was a manager in a housing association. So partners would be local goverment who aren't going to care, clients would basicaly be council house tenents who don't have much choice in the matter and vendors would be the building trade which in the UK at least is still rather unreconstructed. So no there is no such risk.

Quote:

If my private actions cost my employer the trust of our clients, then it really doesn't matter if the clients were mistaken in not trusting us; my employer has to seriously consider whether it can afford to keep me in a job where I lack the necessary trust to do the job.

This is true however in order to prevent unreasonable limitations on employee freedom it would need to be shown very clearly that this applied.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Does that apply to you if your employer decided he was not happy with what you just said there and sacked you?

It varies from state to state, , here in Illinois, unless you can show discrimination (which is a high bar), all you will get is unemployment insurance for being fired without cause.

[Rolfe]

He was an employee of a housing association. He had been a manager and they demoted him to rent collector.

I'm not 100% sure about England, but same-sex marriage is not yet legal in Scotland (as opposed to civil partnerships), and as far as I know England is actually behind Scotland in bringing in this legislation. Part of the reason for the delay in Scotland is precisely that the government is seeking to ensure that churches cannot be obliged to perform same-sex weddings against their will.

Because of this, as I understand it, the current proposal is to permit same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil partnerships, which are already legal), but only civil ceremonies. Churches who wish to perform same-sex marriages are complaining that they will be forbidden from doing so!

That's the current state of play in Scotland. And we have people openly campaigning against even the proposed new legislation, which is for same-sex marriage in civil ceremonies only. I don't think it's much different in England.

So this man expressed his opinion against a provision which is not even law yet, but merely being discussed as possibly being permitted by law at some unspecified time in the future. And maybe not even then.

It's ridiculous.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'll just repeat that. In a civil and polite way, he expressed disapproval of something which, at the moment, is actually illegal. And not even proposed as being made legal either, as I understand it (caveat, not that well-versed in details of English proposals).

Let's take another situation. We know the age of consent in some countries is 15, although it's 16 here. Let's imagine there were proposals here to lower the age of consent to 15, which had not yet been enacted, and some people opposed these proposals.

If in that situation someone went on to their private Facebook page and expressed the opinion, politely, that 15 was too young and they were not in favour of 15-year-olds having sex, would that be grounds for sacking?

Because as far as I can see, that's analogous.

Rolfe.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm not 100% sure about England, but same-sex marriage is not yet legal in Scotland (as opposed to civil partnerships),

Scotland's Shame.

We should be absolutely 100000000% ashamed to be saying that and yet demanding our independence.

[bookworm]

I know a young person who was recently fired from her job for her Facebook comments. She was told that her postings are in very poor taste and then fired.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Let's take another situation. We know the age of consent in some countries is 15, although it's 16 here. Let's imagine there were proposals here to lower the age of consent to 15, which had not yet been enacted, and some people opposed these proposals.

If in that situation someone went on to their private Facebook page and expressed the opinion, politely, that 15 was too young and they were not in favour of 15-year-olds having sex, would that be grounds for sacking?

Because as far as I can see, that's analogous.

Hmm within England and Wales the closest analogy would probably be arguing that those between 16 and 18 should continue to need their parent's permission to marry.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Scotland's Shame.

We should be absolutely 100000000% ashamed to be saying that and yet demanding our independence.

I don't see what that has to do with the price of fish. Same-sex marriage isn't legal in England yet either. If we have to wait till we're a morally perfect society, then we'll wait forever.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by geni

Hmm within England and Wales the closest analogy would probably be arguing that those between 16 and 18 should continue to need their parent's permission to marry.

Yeah, I only realised recently that Gretna Green wasn't entirely redundant these days.

But yes, use that if you like. A controversial change in the law is proposed, and people discuss the proposal. This man spoke in favour of the status quo, that is he spoke against allowing something that is currently illegal.

There is no possible way expressing this opinion could adversely affect his employer. The whole thing is ridiculous. Even Peter Tatchell is supporting the guy.

But not the Americans, it seems. Land of the Free, unless you want to keep your job in which case you'd better take a vow of silence.

Rolfe.

[MarkCorrigan]

As much as I think this guy was a complete douchebag of the highest order, I have to say I agree that he should not have been demoted and so on.

If you post on facebook that your boss is a prick, you should be able to be fired, you make a comment that is relevant to your work, you should be fired if it is an opinion that would impact negatively on your ability to do your job. If it's just a comment on your beliefs that has nothing to do with your job, however odious a scumbag you make it obvious you are you shouldn't be fired for it.

If people want to avoid you and your place of work however, more power to them.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm quite interested by the fact that is seems to be mainly Americans, from the "land of the free", who are supporting the employer in this. Is this because free speech in America is nowhere near as free as we're led to believe? Or is it that in this case they personally disagree with the employee, therefore they automatically argue against him?

Is there any contentious religious or political position that anyone should be able to express politely, in a semi-public forum, without fear of losing their job?

Rolfe.

I think it's because some people (oddly enough the one's who claim to be "open minded") think that if your views are different from theirs you should be held in a hole and beaten with sticks until you recant. Then you can get a job cleaning toilets....

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

As much as I think this guy was a complete douchebag of the highest order,...

I think it's unfair to call the guy such names. He expressed disapproval for something that is currently illegal. This is a subject on which society is moving very rapidly. It's only very recently, to people of my age, that homosexual acts ceased to be illegal. We've gone from completely illegal, to OK for consenting adults in private with "adults" being 21, then the age of consent has been reduced, and just last week (or so it seems) the concept of civil partnerships was introduced.

That is an enormous change in just a few decades. Now we're talking about allowing actual marriage for same-sex couples, but there is still considerable debate about it. In particular, allowing church weddings for same-sex couples is something we don't seem ready to permit. And even if we do, churches who don't approve will not be forced to perform such ceremonies.

This suggests that there is a pretty solid base of people who are not yet comfortable with the subject. I stress the "yet" part, because I repeat that society has come an extraordinarily long way already on this, and is still moving. Some people cope with this change more readily than others. Calling them names isn't productive.

Same-sex marriage is still illegal. Same-sex church weddings are even further from being legal. Even when/if they do become permissible in law, individual churches will be allowed freedom of conscience not to participate.

But a man can lose his livelihood for politely saying, in a conversation intended to be confined to friends, that he doesn't agree with this thing which is still illegal and will not be compulsory?

When we get to the stage that same-sex church weddings are allowed by law, but individual churches are allowed not to participate, will it be a sacking offence if any church member lobbies for their church not to participate?

Peter Tatchell is quite right. This is a serious free speech issue.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

From the original article.

Quote:

The father-of-two's Facebook comments were not visible to the general public, and were posted outside work time, but the trust argued he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers.

Nothing about damaging the employer in any way. "Might upset co-workers", poor babies.

He expressed his view that something which is currently illegal should remain illegal, despite moves to make it legal. If his co-workers need to be protected from that sort of upset, we're in a worse state than I imagined.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Yeah, I only realised recently that Gretna Green wasn't entirely redundant these days.

The 3 month? (something like that) residency requirement renders it largely useless.

[Rolfe]

Yes, I know that. I hadn't realised even the legal difference was still in existence.

I have to say the concept of a couple from Scotland going to Gretna Green to get married has always struck me as particularly ridiculous. Sometimes they do it though.

It actually came up in the context of extending the voting franchise to 16-year-olds in Scotland. That 16 is the historic age of majority in Scotland and that has never been changed, it's just that other specific restrictions have cramped their style.

I still wouldn't let the little buggers drink....

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

As an American, I side with the employer because the content of the speech is irrelevant. Every citizen enjoys the right to say his mind. As this guy did. Nobody pulled down his post or shot him. But having had his say he has no power to force anyone else to accept it, or act on it, or not act on it. You want to call your boss a dork? Go ahead, you have that right. And he has the right to fire you for it.

American ethos is against the notion of having your cake and eating it also. The right to free speech does not come with the right to immunity from reaction to your speech.

It may or may not work that way for him though. He can argue that this was religious based discrimination and as such would be protected in the us.

So as he was stating a religious position he could be protected at work.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Since when did expressing the opinion that same-sex weddings in church are not something you favour become something worthy of being sacked over?

I'm seriously unclear in what way this opinion was related to his job anyway.

I look forward to the day I can attend the first same-sex wedding in my local church. I'm not holding my breath though, because I know a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the idea. The thought that these people could lose their jobs for saying so is absolutely horrifying.

Rolfe.

Well, 3 of the faires I work for are owned by a lesbian couple. They would likely fire him.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think it's unfair to call the guy such names. He expressed disapproval for something that is currently illegal.

To take a leaf out of your book from above, what does that have to do with the price of fish? The guy is a bigot. He isn't saying gays should be stoned to death, but he's still advocating a separation between the treatment of gay people and straight people. That's bigotry. That's being a douchebag.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is a subject on which society is moving very rapidly. It's only very recently, to people of my age, that homosexual acts ceased to be illegal. We've gone from completely illegal, to OK for consenting adults in private with "adults" being 21, then the age of consent has been reduced, and just last week (or so it seems) the concept of civil partnerships was introduced.

That is an enormous change in just a few decades. Now we're talking about allowing actual marriage for same-sex couples, but there is still considerable debate about it.

Yes, because there's still a large amount of bigotry in this country. I think that it's incredible that we've made such a big leap forward in such a short time, and being a member of the younger generation (I'm 25) it seems much more normal to me to accept homosexuality. That being said though, I come from a very, VERY conservative area around here, either because of the huntin' shootin' fishin' crowd or the "they're comin' over 'ere taking our jobs..." crowd and neither one is particularly happy with gay rights becoming more prevalent.

Either way though, it doesn't matter that much to me. I kind of accept homophobia from people my grandparents age because well, they're in their late 80's and that kind of thing is ingrained into them (although I'm not actually sure my grandparents are homophobic. They certainly aren't racist). I don't accept it from anyone else because we live in a modern world. All the crap that homophobes used to give credence to their disgusting attitudes like "it's unnatural" or attitudes about how gays shouldn't be allowed in the military or shouldn't be allowed to raise kids are being overturned. The last thing that they have to cling to is religious based intolerance. Whilst I'm hardly the most religion friendly person in the world, I also have no problem with people believing in Christ or Allah or whatever they wish so long as they don't attempt to impose their beliefs on others, restrict human rights based on their beliefs or try to set back science in some way. Refusal to allow same sex marriages in church would come under 2 for me.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

In particular, allowing church weddings for same-sex couples is something we don't seem ready to permit. And even if we do, churches who don't approve will not be forced to perform such ceremonies.

Why not? If they want to perform legally binding weddings they should conform to the law when it is changed. If they do not wish to, they should be stripped of their wedding license. No exceptions. Religion is not an acceptable cover for bigotry.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This suggests that there is a pretty solid base of people who are not yet comfortable with the subject.

There's a pretty solid base of people who aren't comfortable with black people either. I don't think that they should be listened to.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I stress the "yet" part, because I repeat that society has come an extraordinarily long way already on this, and is still moving. Some people cope with this change more readily than others.

Now, call me crazy, but I suspect anyone who has a religiously motivated bigotry towards gay people is unlikely to be swayed by much without either having a relation who is gay or losing their religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Calling them names isn't productive.

I don't think anything would be "productive" outside of helping him lose his religion. Similarly I don't think that anything much will help the BNP supporting scum who live near me. I won't stop calling them scum though. This guy may not be what I suspect and if that is the case, I will retract what I've said and apologise for my assumption, but yeah...I don't see why mild bigoted beliefs get a pass any more than I see why strong bigoted beliefs do. Just because there's a difference in degree doesn't mean either is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Same-sex marriage is still illegal. Same-sex church weddings are even further from being legal. Even when/if they do become permissible in law, individual churches will be allowed freedom of conscience not to participate.

See above for my opinion of this cowardly and despicable allowance of intolerance.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But a man can lose his livelihood for politely saying, in a conversation intended to be confined to friends, that he doesn't agree with this thing which is still illegal and will not be compulsory?

When we get to the stage that same-sex church weddings are allowed by law, but individual churches are allowed not to participate, will it be a sacking offence if any church member lobbies for their church not to participate?

Did you notice the part where I agreed with you on this, because you seem to have completely ignored it just because I called this guy a douchebag.

[ponderingturtle]

I just want to know, what other religious ceremonies are illegal in Britian? Clearly you don't have much freedom of religion there.

Here in a more free country there are gay weddings in churches in every state even those that have no legal recognition of the relationship.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

To take a leaf out of your book from above, what does that have to do with the price of fish? The guy is a bigot. He isn't saying gays should be stoned to death, but he's still advocating a separation between the treatment of gay people and straight people. That's bigotry. That's being a douchebag.


Yes, because there's still a large amount of bigotry in this country. I think that it's incredible that we've made such a big leap forward in such a short time, and being a member of the younger generation (I'm 25) it seems much more normal to me to accept homosexuality. That being said though, I come from a very, VERY conservative area around here, either because of the huntin' shootin' fishin' crowd or the "they're comin' over 'ere taking our jobs..." crowd and neither one is particularly happy with gay rights becoming more prevalent.

Either way though, it doesn't matter that much to me. I kind of accept homophobia from people my grandparents age because well, they're in their late 80's and that kind of thing is ingrained into them (although I'm not actually sure my grandparents are homophobic. They certainly aren't racist). I don't accept it from anyone else because we live in a modern world. All the crap that homophobes used to give credence to their disgusting attitudes like "it's unnatural" or attitudes about how gays shouldn't be allowed in the military or shouldn't be allowed to raise kids are being overturned. The last thing that they have to cling to is religious based intolerance. Whilst I'm hardly the most religion friendly person in the world, I also have no problem with people believing in Christ or Allah or whatever they wish so long as they don't attempt to impose their beliefs on others, restrict human rights based on their beliefs or try to set back science in some way. Refusal to allow same sex marriages in church would come under 2 for me.

Why not? If they want to perform legally binding weddings they should conform to the law when it is changed. If they do not wish to, they should be stripped of their wedding license. No exceptions. Religion is not an acceptable cover for bigotry.


There's a pretty solid base of people who aren't comfortable with black people either. I don't think that they should be listened to.

Now, call me crazy, but I suspect anyone who has a religiously motivated bigotry towards gay people is unlikely to be swayed by much without either having a relation who is gay or losing their religious beliefs.

I don't think anything would be "productive" outside of helping him lose his religion. Similarly I don't think that anything much will help the BNP supporting scum who live near me. I won't stop calling them scum though. This guy may not be what I suspect and if that is the case, I will retract what I've said and apologise for my assumption, but yeah...I don't see why mild bigoted beliefs get a pass any more than I see why strong bigoted beliefs do. Just because there's a difference in degree doesn't mean either is acceptable.

See above for my opinion of this cowardly and despicable allowance of intolerance.



Did you notice the part where I agreed with you on this, because you seem to have completely ignored it just because I called this guy a douchebag.

speaking of an intolerant opinion...........

"people who I disagree with are scum and douchebags...."

nice, real open minded and tolerant POV there

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Did you notice the part where I agreed with you on this, because you seem to have completely ignored it just because I called this guy a douchebag.

Yes, I did notice that part. We don't disagree by much. I just think you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

He's a product of his own environment and upbringing. Bigotry is astonishingly widespread, and I don't think you make any headway against it by demonising people who hold these views. You persuade, and inform.

In particular, since the thing he was expressing disapproval of is something which is still actually illegal, then I think name-calling is a bit harsh.

(As far as forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings in future, I think you have to approach this with a bit of realpolitik. It may come in future, as the guest-house that was told it couldn't refuse a room to a homosexual couple. But if the politicos tried to press that point now, it would set the whole thing back at least 20 years.)

Rolfe.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I just want to know, what other religious ceremonies are illegal in Britian? Clearly you don't have much freedom of religion there.

Here in a more free country there are gay weddings in churches in every state even those that have no legal recognition of the relationship.

I'm having trouble telling whether you're joking. Obviously, and I would hope it goes without saying, no such religious ceremonies are illegal*; the question is whether the state can compel a church that performs legally recognized weddings to perform them for gay couples too.

*ETA: although as things stand, a gay wedding in a church is not currently recognized as a wedding.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Rat

I'm having trouble telling whether you're joking. Obviously, and I would hope it goes without saying, no such religious ceremonies are illegal*; the question is whether the state can compel a church that performs legally recognized weddings to perform them for gay couples too.

*ETA: although as things stand, a gay wedding in a church is not currently recognized as a wedding.

Then why does Rolf keep claiming that the ceremony would contravene the law?

[Rolfe]

Ponderingturtle seems to be having the same conversation in two threads. I just asked, in the other thread, what the penalty would be for a civil registrar who performed a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. It's a ridiculous question. The couple would not be legally married, because same-sex couples cannot be legally married in Scotland or England at the present time.

Rolfe.

[Rat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then why does Rolf keep claiming that the ceremony would contravene the law?

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Gay marriages are currently not recognized as such over here (we have civil partnerships as the 'separate but equal' kludge). I'm pretty sure that a wedding ceremony in a church would not be illegal as things stand, but the resulting marriage would not be recognized as such by the state. This is perhaps due to change within a single-digit number of years, which is why the chap was talking about it in the first place, and which is why the details of whether churches can be compelled to perform such ceremonies are being discussed.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then why does Rolf keep claiming that the ceremony would contravene the law?

I'm struggling to see where the gap is in your understanding. Nobody can legally marry a same-sex couple in Scotland or in England as yet. Not a minister, or a vicar, or a priest, or a civil registrar. They can dress up in white dresses or tail-coats or Batman and Robin outfits if they like, but they won't be married.

Rolfe.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by StankApe

speaking of an intolerant opinion...........

"people who I disagree with are scum and douchebags...."

nice, real open minded and tolerant POV there

Good grief, not this old rubbish again.

No, people I disagree with are not bigots and scum. Racists, homophobes, transphobes and people who would denigrate another based on who and what they are, be it the colour of their skin, their sexual attractions or their gender identity are scum. The BNP, in case you are unaware, are an out and out racist and homophobic political party that calls for the deportation of almost everyone who isn't white from the UK. In private, they would rather these people be killed if they refuse to leave.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd say that someone who thinks that a black person is less than human is a scumbag. Maybe you haven't a problem with racists? Who knows. Personally, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

In a bygone era, controversial remarks made at a private cocktail party within earshot of guests who also happened to be co-workers, would be reasonably expected to have workplace repercussions, even though the party was "private".

I can't speak for your country, but if any employer tried to do this in New Zealand they would be in serious trouble.

[Rolfe]

I think there may be some confusion between actual marriage ceremonies and religious blessings. I don't imagine there is any secular law that prohibits any church blessing the union of any couple they want to bless. At the moment, I believe same-sex couples can have their civil partnerships blessed in some churches.

We're not talking about religious blessings. We're talking about actual legal marriage. And that isn't legal at all for same-sex couples yet. If civil same-sex marriage is allowed, should religious same-sex marriage be allowed? Civil partnerships are civil-ceremony only. If religious same-sex marriage is allowed, should it be compulsory - that is, should all churches be compelled to perform such marriages if requested to do so by a same-sex couple?

This is all a matter for debate at the moment, and the debate has been quite heated in some quarters. Adrian Smith was merely expressing his own opinion in the debate, perfectly politely, on his private Facebook page, and not forcing his opinion on anyone. He was in fact supporting the status quo, that is supporting something that is currently illegal remaining illegal.

For that he lost his job and 40% of his income at the age of 55, and is called names on the internet. It's a debate, people. Another thread on this very forum is coming up to 500 posts on the subject. It is not OK to call people filthy names just because you disagree with them on a currently contentious subject, even though you passionately believe you're in the right.

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Ponderingturtle seems to be having the same conversation in two threads. I just asked, in the other thread, what the penalty would be for a civil registrar who performed a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. It's a ridiculous question. The couple would not be legally married, because same-sex couples cannot be legally married in Scotland or England at the present time.

Rolfe.

And weddings are religious ceremonies. So by banning them you are imposing restrictions on religions.

[Rolfe]

I still don't follow you at all.

Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm struggling to see where the gap is in your understanding. Nobody can legally marry a same-sex couple in Scotland or in England as yet. Not a minister, or a vicar, or a priest, or a civil registrar. They can dress up in white dresses or tail-coats or Batman and Robin outfits if they like, but they won't be married.

Rolfe.

So then why classify them as illegal? They are perfectly legal, though not legally recognized.

[schplurg]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm quite interested by the fact that is seems to be mainly Americans, from the "land of the free", who are supporting the employer in this. Is this because free speech in America is nowhere near as free as we're led to believe? Or is it that in this case they personally disagree with the employee, therefore they automatically argue against him?

Is there any contentious religious or political position that anyone should be able to express politely, in a semi-public forum, without fear of losing their job?

Rolfe.

At least he wasn't arrested:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...edom-to-tweet/

Quote:

Figures obtained by The Associated Press through a freedom of information request show a steadily rising tally of prosecutions in Britain for electronic communications – phone calls, emails and social media posts – that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character – from 1,263 in 2009 to 1,843 in 2011. The number of convictions grew from 873 in 2009 to 1,286 last year.

Quote:

Last month, 19-year-old Matthew Woods was sentenced to 12 weeks in jail for making offensive tweets about a missing 5-year-old girl, April Jones.


The same month Azhar Ahmed, 20, was sentenced to 240 hours of community service for writing on Facebook that soldiers "should die and go to hell" after six British troops were killed in Afghanistan. Ahmed had quickly deleted the post, which he said was written in anger, but was convicted anyway.

Ya, silly Americans. But then, you raise a great question...

Quote:

Is this because free speech in America is nowhere near as free as we're led to believe? Or is it that in this case they personally disagree with the employee, therefore they automatically argue against him?

I think your guess that the content of the guys speech being the reason is correct. It seems pretty inconsistent for members of this board to side against him otherwise.

So what's up JREFers? Do you seriously believe that this guy should be demoted, or that people should be fired for saying something non-job related on Facebook?

What if the "offending comment" was something you agreed with? I'm trying to think of an example, but what this guy said was so unoffensive, I can't really think of anything. How about (not saying all JREFers agree with this), "I think gay marriage is okay and I think my church should comply"

Now say he got demoted for that. Do you feel the boss would be justified and within his right to do so?