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

Yes. Holding public protests is not the same as "having private beliefs " and his beliefs made him unable to be relied upon to carry out his job fairly so I think the sacking was right

Ridiculous and shameful behaviour by the Red Cross. People are allowed to hold whatever opinions they like. What next sacking people because they volunteer for the "wrong" parties at election time? Or because they're seen supporting or protesting the "wrong" issue? Perhaps the Red Cross need to issue a list of allowed opinions to its volunteers in case any others hold the wrong ones?

Unless the person was refusing to extend Red Cross' services to gay couples (or saying they would in future) or refusing to hire or harassing an employee because of it, they shouldn't be fired. Being against gay marriage is fine. Even for the Equalities Minister, in theory. It's whether that personal belief intrudes on their job that's the issue. Many people disapprove of couples living together unmarried, and even more so having children in that situation just as many churches religions require them to, and no one would think of firing them unless they were letting it get in the way of their own/their co-workers work, or annoying the client.

However on reading the non DM story it is clear that the Red Cross made it clear several times his dismissal was nothing to do with his views so in fact this is as usual a trumped up DM story designed to promote outrage and division.

If they were doing their job properly as per their job description then they should not be sacked. If their job description says they have to do something that supports gay marriage then they should be subject to disciplinary procedure if they refuse to do it, otherwise the Red Cross are being v. unreasonable.
The individual does have to be sensible though, I work in education and we teach Christianity. I am careful to say 'some people believe....' or 'I believe this, but not everybody does so we have to respect the views that everybody holds'. If I get told that a service user does not believe in my religion then I will tell them that some do, some don't and any belief or lack of is fine.

The man has a problem with gay marriage. I don't agree with him, but that is not the same as having a problem with homosexuality altogether. Is there any evidence that he treated asylum seekers who needed asylum because of their sexuality any differently to others? If not, then yes, I think it is unfair.

Besides, can volunteers be 'fired'? Do charities have to justify no longer accepting your unpaid efforts in the same way that employers have to justify firing someone? There is a point at which it is discriminatory (see US Boy Scouts anti-gay stance) but is it discrimination for a local group to find an individual is a hindrance rather than an aid to fulfilling their goals, and decline to schedule him any longer?

I don't understand the criticism of gay campaigners targeting businesses and organisations likely to discriminate against them. In the 1960s in the US African American campaign groups like CORE targeted businesses, churches, bus companies etc that believed very strongly in segregation (some of them argued this was part of their religious beliefs too). They were drawing attention to the fact that laws guaranteeing equal treatment were being broken and were testing the willingness of the authorities to enforce the law. It is exactly the same as what gay campaigners are doing today... I don't see why this is seen as troublemaking.

The Red Cross' comments indicate that (a) he wasn't "sacked" only for this reason and (b) that his views were impacting on the way he dealt with people they were helping. So it sounds 100% justified to me.

He actively protested against something enshrined in law and displayed openly homophobic views. IMO a the Red Cross were right to sack him and I absolutely commend them for doing so.

fluffy since the official catholic, anglican and muslim position is against gay marriage, the Red Cross should get rid of any member of these religions?

Obviously not, caroldecker, unless the people concerned actively promote bigoted views. And there are plenty of members of all three religions who do in fact support gay marriage.

Exactly ici

This was the story where they said there was more to it. Where they went on to say they would sack someone if their beliefs were interfering with providing their service to everyone.

If people's religious views tell them that marrying someone of the same sex is wrong then they are perfectly entitled to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and not marry someone of the same sex as them. They have fuck all right to expect their beliefs to dictate what other people with different beliefs do. People have a right to believe whatever they want but not necessarily to voice their beliefs or act upon them. People can believe racist things, homophobic things, anti-Semitic things- but they have no right to say racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic things.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816610/Red-Cross-volunteer-71-axed-gay-marriage-protest-Pensioner-told-no-longer-welcome-charity-views-incompatible-values.html

Original DM article...

Fuzzy so unless everything i say agrees exactly with you then i get I cannot get work?

carol if you openly express racist, homophobic, sexist etc views then I'm sure many employers wouldn't touch you with a barge pole.

In my own home? on the street after work? maybe i should be arrested? do you not have any idea how important free speech is? Without it we live in a totaletarian state.
Read John Stuart Mill 'On Liberty' before you spout any more soul-destroying bollocks.

carol- As long as what you say is not racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic or otherwise illegal you can say whatever the fuck you like whether I agree or not. For example I really dislike mushrooms and other people love mushrooms... They can say they disagree and it's fine. I believe that black people should be allowed the same access to facilities as white people... Other people disagree and the law says they are not allowed to voice this publicly. There is a key difference.

Fluffy, campaigning against gay marriage does not necessarily make you homophobic.

There is no such thing as unrestricted liberty. If you allow people unrestricted freedom some will use it to restrict the freedom of others or in ways that harm others.

Fuzzy - so whose freedom is being restricted here? Surely the ex-volunteer's, rather than any gay person's. His actions are not affecting anyone's liberty.

I don't think people should be sacked for their views, but in all the cases I can remember the person has been doing or refusing to do something because of their views.

We've had people claim that it is Free Speech that allows them to refuse to serve someone in a shop because they are the wrong color, wrong religion, wrong sex or wrong sexuality.

I'd like to know the full story in this case, but it sounds like another example of that.

I'm trying to decide though if there might be some jobs where you would have to agree not to make your views public.

Suppose (just for example) you were ambassador to Saudi. Would it be ok to go around saying you hated Muslims? Wouldn't that prevent you doing your job effectively?

Could you keep a teacher on that said publicly 'I hate the gay kids! they make me feel sick!"

Tricky isn't it.