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

CS- The red cross have been very clear that his views were having an impact on the service he was meant to be providing meaning that his actions were affecting others. Also, if he had his way he would want to restrict the freedom of gay people to marry one another. Everyone has their freedom restricted every day... the ex volunteer has had his freedom restricted just like people who want to drive after a few drinks, or take something that doesn't belong to them, or walk down the street with no clothes on, or play loud music at 1am in a residential area, or own a handgun.

Was there not an issue with the Red Cross in Afghanistan. Something with hospitals where only men were allowed, (i.e. women banned) and the Red Cross agreeing to work with them. I don't remember the full story, but the gist was some people were quite angry with them as it gave tacit approval for gender apartheid, and only men were going to benefit from their efforts by design.

sorry, a bit off topic. Just brought it to mind.

BackOnlyBriefly - you give two examples of people essentially committing hate-crimes; objecting to gay marriage is not the same as hating gay people!

CSLewis, ok maybe you can help me think of some milder examples.

Unless you are saying that nothing someone could say would interfere with their job unless it was also something they could be arrested for. Nothing in between?

and of course I wasn't referring to that guy then, but thinking about general principles

What about someone who campaigns for a law to prevent Muslims from praying. They don't hate Muslims but just believe that prayer is a sacred act of Christianity and if you let other religions pray then it changes the meaning of prayer and makes it less special for Christians when they pray? Would that person be ok to keep their job? I'd say not!

Apologies for migratory question mark.

Fuzzy, I'd say it depends on what their job is.

The spoken/written word, unless it is abusive or incites hatred/violence, does not hurt anyone. Neither does it impinge on anyone's freedom. It is simply the expression of ideas, not all of which you may agree with.

I'm a schoolteacher... Would it be appropriate for me to keep my job if I stood around in the town centre at the weekend with a placard reading "say no to Muslim prayer"?

it depends on what their job is.

Like perhaps the Red Cross that has to be neutral in all things?

I remember watching films when I was a kid of the Red Cross going into Prisoner of War camps on both sides.

As long as you didn't take your placard into the classroom, Fuzzy, I don't think you should be prevented from spending your weekends like that.

So was this man discriminating against gay asylum seekers in his Red Cross role? If so, yep, the boot. If not, what is the problem? He is against gay marriage, not gays it seems. The two do not necessarily go together. It is not necessarily homophobic to be against gay marriage. Often, such objections are about the meaning of the institution, not anyone's sexuality. Actually, I would have thought being able to marry a homosexual partner would not be high on the priority list of someone seeking asylum on the basis of their sexuality. Not being hung from a crane would be. Again, for the record, I do not have an issue with gay marriage.

People need to stop comparing volunteer work to holding a job. He wasnt fired because he was never hired. As a volunteer, there is no need for him to be discrete in where or when he expresses his views, unlike with some employers/employees. On the other hand, the volunteer organisation has no need to maintain a relationship with a volunteer whose lack of discretion disrupts their work for any reason.

The concept of a 'matter of conscience' seems to have disappeared.

Its just sad... I hope this guy will volunteer for another organisation which will not discriminate his beliefs.

The poor man. Let's hope he finds a nice bigoted organisation to volunteer for.

And discriminating on the grounds of conscience isn't bigoted? Nice double standards here

Yes it's bigoted against being a bigot.

How dreadful. Poor bigot.

Plus they said he was sacked for other reasons.

Other people disagree and the law says they are not allowed to voice this publicly. There is a key difference.

does anyone know what the laws regarding speech and racism are? I don't. someone please inform.

What you say seems to not be true regarding gays. people spout a lot of hateful stuff about gays from pews/mosques/synagogues/UKIP houses across the country.

What about someone who campaigns for a law to prevent Muslims from praying. They don't hate Muslims but just believe that prayer is a sacred act of Christianity and if you let other religions pray then it changes the meaning of prayer and makes it less special for Christians when they pray? Would that person be ok to keep their job? I'd say not!

of course it would be ok and in fact is.

Religions constantly teach about how wrong all the other religions are on most issues. you think that should be illegal?

how can you discriminate against peoples beliefs ...people believe what they believe you can't force them not to

but if they put those beliefs into practice at work or when representing a company or charity then they are in the wrong - your beliefs are not yours to impose on others and they don't override the policy and guidelines of the people you work for

I'm not sure he is a bigot as such Fanjo, if he isn't homophobic but has (now) niche beliefs about the nature of marriage.

I sometimes think the generation born in the war and before must be suffering from culture shock generally. But more to the point, marriage being between a man and a woman is a religious teaching. We do usually, as a society, extend more tolerance to religiously taught objeections of this sort.

The logical approach would have been to make all civil marriages (same and opposite sex) into civil partnerships and leave all marriage as religious rites with no legal standing, but that was never going to happen.

I don't think it should be illegal... I think it is illegal! The fact that it is only rarely enforced, especially when people claim a religious basis for their bigotry, is irrelevant. People can be and have been prosecuted and fined for such protests. I fully support those who bring the test cases that are forcing the authorities, slowly but surely, to enforce the law.