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

Hate speech is not the same as freedom of speech and hate speech means consequences which can include losing your job or prison

What did they say/post?

Then why is it in your thread title?

You can’t ask a question about a topic and then object when people answer on that topic. You dragged the whole thread into the topic and we responded.

Imagine it was Heather Herbert we are talking about here. He is a non passing male TRA and I imagine 99% of comments on the story on social media were along those lines. After his comments on Ann Widdecombe. Even OP is cavalier about his pronouns.

YANBU and I have reported people for this in the past, freedom of expression doesn’t extend to hate speech.

You put it in your title

So we’re bound to ask what you think about someone who adopted a position publicly and whether or not you think they should be sacked

As a separate but related issue , the ‘perpetrator’ who is potentially bringing the company into disrepute, has possibly been problematic for an organisation in other ways - poor work ethic, antagonistic, bullying, bit of a pervert, etc., nothing ‘extreme’ or that can’t be laughed off as a bit of ‘banter’ that warrants nothing more than a slap on the wrists and some diversity training. Most people here, particularly women, will be able to name at least one of these pricks - it’s just one micro aggression after another. Getting the sack for bringing the company into disrepute is an organisation’s way to finally get rid of them.

OP - makes a post asking about hate speech relating to trans people
Also OP - I don’t want to discuss trans stuff

This is particularly nasty and there should certainly be some kind of censure for it. Contemptible man.

Was it on public or private social media? Was the employer clear? These are relevant considerations. People have a certain amount of freedom of speech to be offensive. Plenty of male TRAs are blatantly misogynistic and sometimes women will respond in kind.

Yes I did wonder why OP didn't mention rape and death threats directed at women.

Just because you start a thread, doesn’t mean you can police it. You have tag teamed 3 different suggestions for abuse, but have not clarified all with examples.

This may be a mistake on your part or you might be deliberately trying to group dissimilar actions.

An example. Some people say calling a transwoman a man is transphobic and some say it is just expressing GC views. You would have to give me very precise and full circumstances to get good response.

it could be abuse in some cases, but not others.

You keep saying this, but people are making salient points. It was you who mentioned 'trans hate' in the first place. You're being asked legitimate questions, maybe answer them?

If you're in a role that requires people to place trust in you in any way - and those working in education, the health service and the wider public sector are definitely in that category - then there is a responsibility on you not to undermine that trust. The Nolan Principles exist for a reason and they're a good guide for how those in whom the public have placed trust should behave in public.

I was a civil servant for a number of years and the importance of not just being impartial but being perceived to be impartial in how we went about our work meant curbs on other aspects of our lives. And that's as it should be.

For those employed by private organisations, these considerations will be based more on potential commercial impacts of damage to reputation. No organisation has an obligation to employ someone who is driving away business.

The GP receptionist stoked her own fire by posting "Poor me, I was sacked because I was too nice to people and they want receptionists to be rude". People then scrolled down. We're not talking about anything close to concern about protecting single sex spaces; this was reposting a photo of a trans person with "Fucking state of this, imagine thinking they could pass" for example. I think anyone in any job is playing a risky game with posts like that.

It’s not just up to employers to decide what’s proportionate and sacking is going to be considered a last resort by courts, if what is being expressed is a protected belief such as this one. Read the link I posted, Kristie Higgs won a landmark case in the Court of Appeal.

It’s really not that complicated.

No it’s not off topic it’s the whole point. You either have to punish all statements that are offensive to some members of your user group or potentially none of them.

Violent threats to trans people are unacceptable.
Violent threats to gender critical people are unacceptable.

You have to treat both as equally serious otherwise as an employer you will be subject to and probably lose unfair dismissal cases.

For example, there are 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act on what basis would you sanction an employee for offensive postings about service users with one of those characteristics but not sanction another employee for offensive posts about another characteristic.

Is publicly slagging off old people ok but slagging off immigrants not ok?

if you work with diverse groups of people. ( which is everyone)
you should not have an intense hatred of these people

I'm so glad I don't work anymore.

I think the threshold needs to be that an employer can demonstrate that what you said actually has in reality reduced customer numbers or made service users avoid that employee and providing an alternative employee for the task is impractical or costly. Potentials, maybes, etc isn’t enough for me when it comes to your employer’s mores dictating your personal life, and I really believe in free speech even when that speech disgusts me, but I think an employer needs to be able to control its business too, so it’s a balance of responsibilities.