to agree with the red cross for sacking someone that protested about gay marriage

[pixie130]

I think I will donate to them in support of this action. The daily mail is outraged against this

[FreeSpirit89]

Um, about gay marriage. Which side. For or against?

Very vague op, and possibly just to start something in the boards

[grannymcphee]

This post is probably to start an argument on MN, but before anyone starts, that poor man has probably been totally 'set up' by the gay marriage lobby. It's not the first time, remember the B&B couple who ended up in court because of their beliefs? At the time gay marriage was made legal, our politicians made assurances that no-one would be victimised if it was against their beliefs. That seems like a very hollow promise now. I am neither for or against gay marriage but I do believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we should not be 'brain washed' by politicians, minority groups or anyone who has a 'flag to fly' .

[Birra]

?

[ghostyslovesheep]

unless you think it's okay for businesses and charities to refuse to 'work' or serve black people, Asians, women or people with disabilities you are talking out of your ass

Gay people have the same rights as everyone else and deserve fully equal treatment

[Backinthering]

So grannymcphee is everyone entitled to their opinion if that opinion is, for instance, racist? Or is it just homophobia that's okay?
Someone's religious beliefs don't give them the right to be an offensive, bigoted twat. Plenty of religious people manage not to be.

[FrauHelgaMissMarpleandaChuckle]

Well, if the Daily Mail is totally outraged against it, it must be totally and utterly true.

[raltheraffe]

It depends on what their issue is with gay marriage. I would say if their protest is due to their religious views, sacking them is unfair. People with a faith have as many rights as gay people.

[Backinthering]

So if I decide I belong to a faith that doesn't like black people, should I be protected from sacking too?

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

Grannymcphee they can hold any private beliefs they want but businesses rightfully are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on grounds of sexual orientation, race or disability. Thank god. Objecting to someone refusing you service because yoy are gay is far more than "flying a flag"

[ReallyTired]

I think it's legally a minefield sacking someone for being against gay marriage. Is it relevant to the person's job having a certain religous belief/ opinion? Sometimes the right to free speech is the right to a politically unpopular/ repugnant opinion.

Our equalities and education was/is anti gay marriage. Do we believe that Nikki Morgan has changed her beliefs? I am more concerned the equalities Minster having a history of being anti gay marriage than a charity worker.

[AuntieStella]

A person need to be able to fulfil all parts of their job description.

But can hold any (legal) belief they like outside work hours. As such institutions as the Church if England can retain opposition to gay marriage (by denying it in church, at parish priest's discretion), then there is a level which should not be penalised.

But incitement to hatred, or refusal to carry out contracted duties, are quite a different matter. It's not clear if either applies here.

Religious freedom is also protected by law. Is the person in question perhaps Jewish or Moslem?

[TooManyMochas]

I've no idea what the story behind this is (a link would be helpful), but we're establishing a dangerous precedent when we say that people can be sacked simply for holding certain views, even if there is no evidence that those views are influencing how they do their job. If employers can sack people because they don't like their views on issue X, then why not issue A, B or C? Why shouldn't employers be able to sack people for being feminist or anti-capitalist? The test of a society's commitment to freedom of expression is always its willingness to extend that freedom to people out of step with social norms.

[Jengnr]

If they protested against it they deserve everything they get.

'Entitled to their opinion', yeah, ok.

Entitled to make other people's lives hell as a result of their disgusting opinions? Hell no.

[TheGirlFromIpanema]

Dunno the story here but I'd happily sack someone who was stupid enough to let me know that they oppose gay marriage.

[ArsenicSoup]

Link please.

[TooManyMochas]

I've just found the Daily Mail article and assuming the article is accurate (this is the Daily Wail after all) the Red Cross are bang out of line.

[andmyunpopularopionis]

People have the right to believe whatever they want. You cannot fire someone for their beliefs or opinions. That's a very slippery slope. Who gets to decide what we're allowed to believe, or what we're allowed to think?

[Seriouslyffs]

Oh for goodness sake link someone!

[Andrewofgg]

Sacking somebody for being a Jehovah's Witness?

Or for reading the Satanic Verses?

Keep your private opinions out of the workplace and don't let them influence you in how you do your work - that's all employers can ask.

Over thirty years ago a certain London Council sacked a caretaker for being a member of the National Front. After he sued they tried to get evidence of him being e.g. rude to black tenants - not that it would do them any good, employers can only rely on what they knew at the time of the sacking - and found none. He had apparently been as polite and helpful to them as to white tenants. They lost. Rightly.

[Discogeek]

Here's a non DM link that gives more info www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/01/red-cross-drops-volunteer-who-held-one-man-protest-against-same-sex-marriage/

[kali110]

Anyone got a link for that daily mail article?

[ArsenicSoup]

Well he wasn't sacked, he was a volunteer, so that changed the legal aspect.

[ArsenicSoup]

^changes

[Discogeek]

He was a volunteer helping refugee families make contact with loved ones back home. He would have worked with many people who have claimed asylum due to their sexual orientation so I completely agree with the Red Cross that his personal views were very much against the work he was carrying out.

[ouryve]

non-DM link
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ann-widdecombe-criticises-british-red-cross-for-allegedly-firing-volunteer-for-antigay-marriage-view-what-happened-to-freedom-of-expression-9843467.html