How far can protected beliefs go?

[lechiffre55]

Asking for cool heads on this one please because it uses a current sensitive topic for an example.
e.g. who you would you vote for threads ususally degenerate quickly to tribal mud slinging. Only an xxxxx would vote yyyyy!

I'm very happy where all the recent tribunal results regarding discrimination and harassment against gender critical beliefs have gone. I hope the trend continues with those still in progress. I have my fingers crossed in particular for Roz after hearing the witnesses from ERCC.
However as with free speech it matters most that you support it not when you agree but when you disagree.
How does this result affect how you feel about the tribunal process? It's certainly making me have a think about how the whole process works and my own views.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13049063/Zionist-tribunal-University-Bristol-professor-Islamophobia.html

I try as much as possible to matintain internal views that are consistent as much as possible if you substitute in different people. So for eample I want all people to have equal rights, including those I disagree with. If you read what this guy believes I think his views are quite extreme, but a tribunal has ruled his belief is legally protected in just the same way that gender critical belief is.
I'm only using this as an example. I don't want a who's right and who's wrong thread about a decades old conflict. I'm more asking for are there any beliefs that shouldn't be protected in law? Who gets to choose which beliefs should and shouldn't be protected.
How can large organisations avoid breaking the protected beliefs discrimination laws if they have a large number of people with vastly differing views, especially when some of those strongly held beliefs are in direct diametric conflict with other equally strongly held beliefs? It seems almost impossible to me.

I have read the judgment and found that, thanks to the Forstater appeal, the bar for finding views WORIADS is indeed very low. Views that are shocking, offensive, disturbing, or even constitute 'less grave' hate speech, all qualify.

So, good for free speech, less good for me, all the times I tried to argue that the case law proves that GC views are not obnoxious!

This was an employment case: hate speech laws are a different matter. I don't agree with the state - as opposed to employers - telling people what they can say, no matter how repugnant.

Miller was found 50% responsible for his own misfortune due to being a PITA, and the ET found it 30% probable that certain other views he expressed could validly have got him sack had they fallen within the ambit of the case.

These were views aimed directly, rather than inferentially, at Jews (they are too influential and are not victims, basically), which gives us an idea of where and how they draw the line.