I'm not an expert on Northern Ireland law and I have not read the whole judgement, but these two paragraphs on their own seem highly problematic to me.
The tribunal has (rightly in my view) rejected BFF's suggestion that their MD was a suitable comparator and have invented their own. As far as I can see, their conclusion that their chosen hypothetical comparator would have been treated in the same way is a conclusion without evidence. That is straight away cause for appeal. It was for BFF to rebut the suggestion that a valid comparator would have been treated differently. By choosing an inappropriate comparator, they failed to do so. In my view, that means the tribunal should have concluded that a hypothetical comparator would indeed have been treated differently. And, of course, this part of the judgement falls apart completely if Sara or her team can identify someone at BFF who made a speech expressing political views and no action was taken when stakeholders expressed concern.
The suggestion that BFF can take action because stakeholders are concerned is troubling. It is tantamount to saying that their stakeholders can determine which political views are acceptable for employees.
The tribunal concludes that the focus of the email was not on Sara's opinions but the perceived consequences. That appears perverse given what the email actually said. "We can’t have an Inclusion/Diversity Officer who, many weeks after making such an ill-advised speech, still stands by her actions completely” reads like a clear call for Sara to be dismissed or, at the very least, forced to withdraw her opinions.
These paragraphs appear to ignore the well-established principle that employees have the right to express their protected beliefs and take part in peaceful political activity in their own time. As far as I am aware, Sara did not claim to be speaking for BFF, nor did she identify herself as a BFF employee. BFF may, possibly, have been able to remove her from a specific project if her views impacted on that project in some way (e.g. if she expressed anti-abortion views and the project was related to abortion clinics), but their actions appear to me to clearly overstep the mark.
My view is that these two paragraphs on their own give multiple causes for appeal. I hope she appeals and wins. It is clear that far too many ETs are captured and need to learn to apply the law, not what GI activists say the law is.