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

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

Read a couple of accounts this week of racist, public supporters of the far-right being sacked for spouting race / immigrant / trans hate on their personal social media accounts.

One was a doctors receptionist.
The other a school learning support assistant.

Both roles where they are likely to work with people in the groups they're publicly trashing online. One was recorded at a far-right rally, speaking about the amount of immigrants she was forced to support in her line of work.

What is your opinion on this?

YABU - People should be able to express their opinion without fear of losing their job. Freedom of speech.

YANBU - Anyone with any kind of public facing role/a role where their employer is likely disapprove of this should not publicly post this way and needs to understand that being sacked is their own fault.

This is an excellent point.

What people say publicly and what they do/think privately are often very different. Many are happy to just play the game.

You’re hugely oversimplifying. SWP are economically left but not culturally so. I only know a couple of SWP members and they are vehemently GC and pro-Israel, even while Israel has a right wing government. I don’t get the impression from them that they are unusual. Socialists incl the Labour left are conservative on immigration because they see it as diluting workers rights.

Exactly, it’s a red line of mine. I won’t call men a type of woman either. Trans identified males, men who identify as women, or just men.

Heather Herbert and his friends have done the trans community no favours. One tends to feel quite sickened when transitioning men can't conceal their machismo traits. I don't know any women who thinks like they do.

If you’re saying things that are visible to the public on social media that reflect badly on you, and by extension on your employer, then being expected to adhere to a sensible code of conduct is not unreasonable. Some infractions are appropriately dealt with via a formal warning, some with a firing, and others with just an explanatory chat - it really depends on the nature and severity of the case.

Most of the people I work with come from multi ethnic, multi religious countries and have fled war and persecution along ethnic or religious lines. They are far more aware of the risks of a rapid and controversial transformation of the demographic make up of many areas of the UK than the vast majority of the population. Thankfully I don't work for the public sector so conversation is still possible.

I believe the bakery was perfectly happy to make the cake; the issue was the slogan “support gay marriage” which went against their Christian beliefs.

It happened a good while ago so I don't remember the exact details but my point was I believe there's a way for people with opposing views to coexist without persecution or compromising their own beliefs but it's an incredibly hard thing to do.

Of course those views and beliefs can't be illegal or directly harmful towards others obviously.

The pp has it right, and it’s an important piece of case law around freedom of speech.

And it speaks directly to some of the issues raised on this thread. I don’t want to be coerced to say or imply that I think some men are women.

Just seen that Geno Segers has been fired from hadestown for "anti-trans" views in old social media posts,

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/hadestown-broadway-geno-segers-b3026092.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawTeuY9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETAxTE9UODU1aTVUQmh3NWRuc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHhqNB-2ksGL4JqSKvak-p8VqB5PpzlTwji_FW9XwBnMvGXskTF9wvgadhofy_aem_u_QjLgUoZBh48iZzlcsvdw

From the article it seems that he has just told the biological truth.
I wonder if there could be a court case in this.

Just seen that he has put out an apology.

It won’t do him any good.

Sorry, coming back late to this but where does your organisation get its funding? My experience of local DV and similar organisations is much like @5128gap - if they don’t toe the self ID line the funding is removed.

Much of the funding for the groups I know comes from local authorities (just this week Labour, LibDem and Green LAs have announced they will not comply with the law and will maintain self ID policies) and large charities/NGOs with Stonewall champion alignment. A condition of funding was alignment with DEI objectives including self id. Staffers who tried to make a rational case for separating services (so accommodating trans women but as a separate group) were forced out or forced into @5128gap position of trying to work out whether to leave or stay and try to mitigate the negative impacts.

20 years ago this was rarely an issue and as you say - trans women I’ve known for decades know perfectly well they are biological males. Its over the last 10/15 years that funding came with absolutist self ID conditions.

Hard to say without outing myself, we have had long term unrestricted funding but also have some HNW donors. We will work with trans women but we protect single sex spaces.

I do accept it has been very difficult for organisations in a different position, we’ve been fortunate enough to be able to be firm (but not outspoken). I’m sympathetic but I’m also frustrated by how many women inside the women’s sector capitulated to the vocal minority. I would have rather left than compromise.