AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

You'd be surprised - I've known huge numbers of people who should have known better. I even know several who took it to tribunal. I don't know anyone who won either.

I only know because she came up on my Facebook feed (I assume due to the popularity of the post) and when I saw the thousands of comments I had a little scroll down. There's no "case" to link to as someone asked for as far as I know, unless there has been an article somewhere but as the GP surgery didn't use social media as a reason to get rid then I guess there wouldn't be.

I think she may just be a bit thick.

I just find it hard to believe somebody with such poor judgement has a university job.

When I was a social worker, we had to abide by social work values and ethics and racist, anti immigrant, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic etc views expressed in a public forum such as social media was grounds for dismissal.

I believe it is still the case. Such views do not belong in caring professions. As a manager it was my job to police this sort of thing.

People were able to hold views, but expressing them in certain ways (e.g. glad of people drowning in the channel, saying muslims should go home, homosexuals should go to prison etc) was not tolerated. Neither was behaviour which demonstrated different treatment of people in those groups.

I would be surprised if school workers have to abode by similar rules.

Then hopefully the employee will win at tribunal as the employer is on extremely shakey ground.
And please stop making assumptions about me. I could write a book on the damage GI has done in my own profession. I'm GC so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Just because some people on the left have done these things, that's no excuse to use 'the left' interchangeably with TRA and their sympathisers.
If you mean TRA have done these things than say so, because I agree it's important to know who we're talking about.
And when you say 'the left' you include me, many other left wing feminists, the ex miners in their 80s at our local welfare club, and the British communist party. None of whom believe some men are women.
TRA are left wing is not the same as left wing people are TRA. No more than racists are right wing is the same as all right wing people are racists.
Language matters.

Thats not true there's an ongoing employment tribunal where a civil servant posted online under a synonym that wasn't linked to his job or his role and another employee found out and doxed him to his colleagues and employer trying to get him and another female colleague sacked because they set up a gc network with.
Now the civil service for once stood up for their gc staff (under threat of legal action) the trans member of staff is sueing DEFRA for allowing a civil service wide gc network to exist even though there's atleast 3 trans/lgbtq+ networks because to certain sections of the left even stating the law that men shouldn't be using the female single sex spaces is harassment.

Honestly I don't think that you understand quite how damaging the "bring your whole self to work" has been or that its only a chosen set of beliefs that are allowed to be brought into work. Nor how far down the purity spiral we have gone as a country.

Well certain parts of the left are well known for targeting people the disagree with usually over womens rights, they and their followers then spam their chosen victims employers with complaints which have resulted in women being illegally fired and winning employment tribunals because of it.
This has been going on for years whilst the left denied that there's cancel culture let alone a problem with it.
So no its not a cheap dig at the left its a fact that this something that the left do more than any other group and we cant deal with it unless we can accurately talk about it and whos doing it

Already covered this in my second paragraph.

The only values that schools or GP surgeries should have are to teach facts not feelings and to heal not harm for ideological dogma.

If a teacher or Dr doesn't believe in gender ideology they shouldn't have to find a new career just because the NHS and education system have been captured by idealogs.

Unless you work in a religious setting or in political position nobody should be talking about their religion/ideology or politics at work and employers shouldn't be pushing their employees to follow/support their religion/ideology or political beliefs. Any employer who does so is illegally discriminating against their staff and breaching their human rights

That HAS to be khtuzpah. The one and only person responsible for dragging legitimate differences of opinion about the roke of sex into a discussion about racism is you yourself. Now you're throwing a strop because posters see through this rather obvious smear tactic? You're not even being original - "trying to keep communal changing rooms free of dick is outrageous segregation and just like Jim Crow" must be the oldest TRA gotcha in existence.

You usually get less time if you plead guilty.

Exactly. It's not cut and dry. That's why we have freedom of expression except for hate speech, clear racism and incitement to violence, etc. That's why it should be dealt with by the police if illegal. If not illegal, it's just an opinion you don't like.

This is going to be about the definition of racist stuff, isn't it? Which is what everybody is telling you.

I would probably want the mayor of Hackney to be sacked right now, but she's been elected!

Okay
I wouldn't know that though because OP didn't tell me / so thank you for clarifying

It depends on the role and the words used.
As a headteacher, I would not express a view on these topics on social. If the learning support assistant felt there were too many immigrants in the country but expressed this in a measured fashion without using derogatory terms I think that’s a valid opinion and ok.

She pleaded guilty to the offence, based on the advice she received.

Did you slip it into your OP and think we wouldn't notice?

It's not a binary issue - every situation will be different. Every employer has a different tolerance. One not in the public eye might not care - no reputation risk. A big public listed co probably cares a lot more. Public sector, more still. And one that lists these sorts of things in their values, more again.

And then it depends what was said, where and how. And whether it can even be linked back to the employer.

Then it will also depend on the employer's policies and contract clauses.

It's not off topic at all. You specified racist, anti-immigrant and anti trans hate in your OP but any such rulings would need to equally apply to hateful speech about women, old people, disabled people and all the other triggers that push some people into hatred. You can't pick and choose. The volume of hateful and violent threats that have been published against women who have the temerity to prioritise women's needs over men's is sickening and the hatred examples against feminists catalogued on terfisaslur.com/ are in exactly the same category as the racism/anti immigrant examples you gave. If you want hatred against feminists to stand as fair comment/legitimate grievance then the same standards applies to racists too, you can't hive off a couple of categories of potential hatred and treat them differently than the others.

She was on a fixed term contract and posted a picture of her self doing fuck all at work, in a health care setting, then winged about being let go between emotive posts demonstrating prejudice to a substantial part of her organisation's client base.
I wonder how difficult the management decision was not to renew that contract.
Now just one item on the Agenda today, renewal of contract for receptionist. That's unanimous then. Where are we going for lunch.