Christian nursery worker sacked over anti-gay views wins tribunal case - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47907046]The issue is that according to the text in the OP, this wasn't hate speech because it wasn't speech at all, it was an answer to a question. That moves this from the area of hate speech to the area of thought crime. You should never, ever be punishable for what you [I]think[/I] if it doesn't influence your actions. [I]Spreading[/I] these thoughts publicly is another matter, as even just spreading words can be painful and harm others, but this is not the case. You should be able to hold any beliefs and thoughts, and you shouldn't ever have to lie to keep yourself safe. That is, in my eyes, basic axioms of human rights.[/QUOTE] They're perfectly entitled to think these views, however, the problem is when these thoughts turn to acts of discrimination. Another issue is that of indoctrination. If a parent holds these beliefs, they are incredibly likely to pass these beliefs on to their child, which will be further reinforced through their religious community. If we can stop this hate speech being audibly aired, then at least we are doing something to prevent the perpetuation of these harmful beliefs, and thus hopefully discrimination.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;47907070]The act itself is still considered evil, if you don't repent for being gay you're considered evil. [/quote] I don't know what to tell you when this is things I have personally discussed with an actual Roman Catholic priest and his opinion on this is simply different from yours. You are simply wrong. [quote] The new testament was written by Jews built on top of the old testament. They're not separate things they're supposed to complement each other.[/QUOTE] Have you gone through a seminary or just ate some bits of the last pope that you make these quite daring statements with such certainty?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;47907070]The act itself is still considered evil, if you don't repent for being gay you're considered evil. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] The new testament was written by Jews built on top of the old testament. They're not separate things they're supposed to complement each other.[/QUOTE] Not really, no. You'll be hardpressed to find any non-extremist sect in the Catholic Church that will call someone evil for being gay, and honestly, they probably won't be called evil even if they did much worse things in the eyes of the church, rape, murder, etc. Calling someone evil inside of Catholicism is weighed MUCH more heavily than outside of it as just a general "morally fucked" kind of meaning.

[QUOTE=Noss;47907083]They're perfectly entitled to think these views, however, the problem is when these thoughts turn to acts of discrimination. [/quote] If there was discrimination proven, I wouldn't defend her, but that's not the case, is it, so why are you bringing that up? [quote] Another issue is that of indoctrination. If a parent holds these beliefs, they are incredibly likely to pass these beliefs on to their child, which will be further reinforced through their religious community. If we can stop this hate speech being audibly aired, then at least we are doing something to prevent the perpetuation of these harmful beliefs, and thus hopefully discrimination.[/QUOTE] What does "audibly aired" mean? She was asked a question, and gave an answer. It wasn't on a public medium, it likely wasn't even in a public place. it was a personal discussion. This is completely irrelevant to the case. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] Seriously guys, do not miss these bits [quote]The tribunal found that Mbuyi’s colleague had clearly indicated that she had first expressly brought up her sexuality in conversation with Mbuyi and there was little or no evidence to suggest Mbuyi targeted her colleague in an attempt to force her faith on her. It said the internal investigation by the employer was hampered by the “stereotypical assumption about evangelical Christians” and that the employer either “pre-judged the outcome accepting unchallenged evidence that supported the stereotypical assumption and/or interpreted Miss Mbuyi’s evidence in an almost impossible way”.[/quote] [quote]Mbuyi is now working as a nanny elsewhere. She spoke of her relief at the outcome, saying: “I only ever responded to questions that my colleague asked me and wanted the very best for her."[/quote] You can be outraged all you want about gays and Christians and all that, but this person got literally bullied out of her job for her religion, and that's pretty hideous.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47907104]If there was discrimination proven, I wouldn't defend her, but that's not the case, is it, so why are you bringing that up? What does "audibly aired" mean? She was asked a question, and gave an answer. It wasn't on a public medium, it likely wasn't even in a public place. it was a personal discussion. This is completely irrelevant to the case.[/QUOTE] I'm looking at the bigger picture, and the precedent that this case will set in the future of UK law. From the article, it states: [quote]Her belief was described by the tribunal as one that is “worthy of respect in a democratic society, is not incompatible with human dignity and is not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.[/quote] [quote]“disparate impact on Christians holding similar views to Miss Mbuyi on the biblical teachings on practising homosexuality. That is not merely because a significantly higher proportion of Christians would hold such views but also because many evangelical Christians feel their faith compels them to share it.”[/quote] These people are being protected because their "faith compels them to share it". How would you feel if you were regularly told that you were committing a sin, purely for being who you are? Even if you do not believe in God, the implication of these people calling it a "sin" shows a great amount of disrespect and contempt for the person.

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Anyone who has attended a church regularly has heard this verse thrown around a lot, and my bet is that the woman in the article is no different. The essential part of this verse is that "all" have sinned, meaning that all people are unholy in the eyes of the Lord. Combine that with James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." and you've got an entire world of people who are all just as guilty under God's law as everyone else. This woman could easily have been saying that "My belief system tells me that your homosexuality is wrong (eg: sin) but that's okay, because I fail in thousands of ways every day, and as the Bible says, no one sin outweighs another. Plus, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (John 1:9). So even homosexuals get into heaven, if they confess to God that they are indeed sinning when they commit homosexual acts." None of this is to say that I agree with her, but this thread is showing just how misinformed Facepunch is about the basic tenants of the bible and how people logically construct some of the religiously based things they say.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47907092]I don't know what to tell you when this is things I have personally discussed with an actual Roman Catholic priest and his opinion on this is simply different from yours. You are simply wrong. Have you gone through a seminary or just ate some bits of the last pope that you make these quite daring statements with such certainty?[/QUOTE] Catholicism isn't the only form of Christianity, and more often than not the whole "gays aren't evil" stuff is just PR stuff they say to avoid getting labelled homophobic, just about any reading of the bible will show you quite clearly that sins and people who are sinful and considered wicked. The new testament itself repeatedly talks about "the wicked ones" which essentially people who "sin" but don't repent.

[QUOTE=Noss;47907170]These people are being protected because their "faith compels them to share it". How would you feel if you were regularly told that you were committing a sin, purely for being who you are? Even if you do not believe in God, the implication of these people calling it a "sin" shows a great amount of disrespect and contempt for the person.[/QUOTE] You appear to have a very strong discrimination against religious people. You should evaluate yourself because you might be acting like the people you hate.

[QUOTE=Noss;47907170]I'm looking at the bigger picture, and the precedent that this case will set in the future of UK law. From the article, it states: These people are being protected because their "faith compels them to share it". How would you feel if you were regularly told that you were committing a sin, purely for being who you are? Even if you do not believe in God, the implication of these people calling it a "sin" shows a great amount of disrespect and contempt for the person.[/QUOTE] How? If you don't believe in god, then you don't believe in sin, and it all means literally fuck-all. If you think what they believe is bullshit, but their bullshit-not-an-insult offends you, you are just choosing to be offended.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47907104]You can be outraged all you want about gays and Christians and all that, but this person got literally bullied out of her job for her religion, and that's pretty hideous.[/QUOTE] She was not "bullied out of her job" because of her religion, she was fired because she was preaching hate and discrimination against another employee on the basis of their sexuality. Going back to the comparison of race (which is perfectly valid), it is akin to me stating to a black person that their 'lifestyle' is a "sin" because I'm a follower of Nossology (Nossology does not actually endorse hatred of black people). However, I would be fired and would not be reinstated, as Nossology isn't held in as high regard as Christianity or any of the other mainstream religions, and therefore my views would not be deemed as acceptable. Bottom line: We need to stop excusing hate speech and discrimination just because it is promoted in a religious text or community. I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to follow a religion, but this should not be used as a tool to preach resentment and discrimination upon others. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47907233]How? If you don't believe in god, then you don't believe in sin, and it all means literally fuck-all. If you think what they believe is bullshit, but their bullshit-not-an-insult offends you, you are just choosing to be offended.[/QUOTE] Except the fact that these beliefs are so intertwined with our laws and society. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;47907226]You appear to have a very strong discrimination against religious people. You should evaluate yourself because you might be acting like the people you hate.[/QUOTE] I do not discriminate against religious/spiritual people, however, when these beliefs are being used as a vessel to fuel discrimination against others, then I am against people who preach those extremely damaging views openly. It doesn't have anything to do with their religion, it has everything to do with their conduct.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;47907181]Catholicism isn't the only form of Christianity, and more often than not the whole "gays aren't evil" stuff is just PR stuff they say to avoid getting labelled homophobic, just about any reading of the bible will show you quite clearly that sins and people who are sinful and considered wicked. The new testament itself repeatedly talks about "the wicked ones" which essentially people who "sin" but don't repent.[/QUOTE] Look, man, I understand you have read pretty bad things about Christians on The Internet, and The Bible is a really spooky book, but A) I have been risen by a Catholic parent, and I have attended catholic classes led by actual priest for years, and no, I in retrospect, I do not believe most of what I have been taught, in religious sense, but I can tell you that you are simply and plainly wrong. Why do you keep arguing about things you do not understand, I do not know. Stop telling actual Christians that you understand their religion better than they do, because you don't. B) Catholic Church has literally about as many believers as all the other ones combined, so if you make an argument against all of Christians, it better shouldn't fall flat against the most populous group among them. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Noss;47907245]She was not "bullied out of her job" because of her religion, she was fired because she was preaching hate and discrimination against another employee on the basis of their sexuality. [/QUOTE] This statement is plain and simply wrong. She was not preaching anything. [quote] Going back to the comparison of race (which is perfectly valid), it is akin to me stating to a black person that their 'lifestyle' is a "sin" because I'm a follower of Nossology (Nossology does not actually endorse hatred of black people). However, I would be fired and would not be reinstated, as Nossology isn't held in as high regard as Christianity or any of the other mainstream religions, and therefore my views would not be deemed as acceptable. [/quote] Okay so your made up strawman not-church is meant to serve as an argument against a religion going for two thousand years with hundreds of millions of believers, and with what they think of gays being actually, within it, quite minor not-issue that just gets constantly blown out of proportion, once by the media, other times by the vocal majority. Good damn example, way to go. Also this is going really far into devil's advocate area and while I firmly believe homosexuality is very likely a spontaneously developed trait and not a willful choice whatsoever, this isn't a fact you can just compare with the fact that black people have black kids, and this makes your strawman ridiculous and stupid.[quote] Bottom line: We need to stop excusing hate speech and discrimination just because it is promoted in a religious text or community. I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to follow a religion, but this should not be used as a tool to preach resentment and discrimination upon others. [/quote] There was zero resentment in this case, there was zero discrimination, and this wasn't even about free speech at all. Free speech is something that talks about voicing your opinions to the wide public. She was NOT doing that. She was asked a question, the court itself determined the question was probably explicitly asked to get her caught and get rid of her, and she did the right thing and answered it. [quote] I do not discriminate against religious/spiritual people, however, when these beliefs are being used as a vessel to fuel discrimination against others, then I am against people who preach those extremely damaging views openly. It doesn't have anything to do with their religion, it has everything to do with their conduct.[/quote] Again, she did nothing wrong. She did not discriminate against this person, she wasn't preaching any damaging views openly. Yet you think she should have lost her job. You are literally discriminating against her, that is what the word means.

[QUOTE=Noss;47907245]I do not discriminate against religious/spiritual people, however, when these beliefs are being used as a vessel to fuel discrimination against others, then I am against people who preach those extremely damaging views openly. It doesn't have anything to do with their religion, it has everything to do with their conduct.[/QUOTE] Really? Because her conduct was simply stating her opinion when asked. She's not trying to violate any right you have as a human or as a citizen.

[QUOTE=Noss;47907245]She was not "bullied out of her job" because of her religion, she was fired because she was preaching hate and discrimination against another employee on the basis of their sexuality. [/QUOTE] I would agree, if you weren't dead wrong: [QUOTE=the article]The tribunal found that Mbuyi’s colleague had clearly indicated that she had first expressly brought up her sexuality in conversation with Mbuyi and there was little or no evidence to suggest Mbuyi targeted her colleague in an attempt to force her faith on her.[/QUOTE] That's not "preaching hate and discrimination" that's "answering a question honestly based on your belief system." From what I've seen from you in here, it seems as though you would have been one of the people who would have contributed to this issue: [QUOTE= the article]It said the internal investigation by the employer was hampered by the “stereotypical assumption about evangelical Christians” and that the employer either “pre-judged the outcome accepting unchallenged evidence that supported the stereotypical assumption and/or interpreted Miss Mbuyi’s evidence in an almost impossible way”.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47906610]It is saying something is so wrong it can be related to evil. How is that not related to hatred? I don't think she should have been fired, but all the same.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;47906750]As I understand, sin is not necessarily evil. Any unlawfulness can be considered a sin.[/QUOTE] The same person would probably tell you working on a Sunday or swearing is a sin. Doesn't mean they hate people who swear or work on Sundays either. Don't confuse european christians with american fundamentalist christians, our lot are much less hate-filled and bigoted. A lot less preachy too.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;47907070]The act itself is still considered evil, if you don't repent for being gay you're considered evil.[/QUOTE] In no Christian theology is this true. People would repent for gay sexual acts, not being gay.

Hmmmm.... [t]http://i.imgur.com/5gtH0Oj.png[/t] Yes, the facepunch homophobic sensationalist Headlines Squad is ready to rate and is fully accounted for! [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] At least Sgman91 has the balls to argue

In general people [B]shouldn't be fired for what they believe[/B], however it depends on the job. If you're the ambassador to Nigeria and you hate blacks you should probably be fired. If you're in some diversity office and you hate gays, whites and jews you should probably not hold that position, etc. A racist working at Burgerking or as a techy should be fine. It shouldn't be a problem until they actually discriminate.

Wow the biblical shitstorm in this thread, the bible only really condones sex for pleasure in any form, its taken a large interpretation of a very select amount of passages to condone gays to going to hell. It says a lot more about leaving people alone than it does about homosexuals. The biblical verse has been reinterpreted so many times as it is a reflection of the people reading it, the same verses were used by both sides of the slavery argument to damn and uphold the institution of slavery, but of course most of the prominent theological organizations gloss over this documented fact

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;47906962]That shit didn't turn up until the new testament and was only put in place because they couldn't go around executing people in foreign countries while trying to spread Christianity Sins are still considered evil and result in excommunication if the person doesn't repent.[/QUOTE] Dude, I can understand not liking religion. But you spouted is factually wrong as confessionals were one of the core reasons why the Catholic church split off from other Christian faiths. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;47907070]The act itself is still considered evil, if you don't repent for being gay you're considered evil. [/QUOTE] And to the Catholic faith, being gay is a sin to overcome. I never said they were right, infact that's incredibly fucked but you're being disingenuous and making things up to prove a point. Also the New Testament was not written by the Jewish people. The Old Testament is basically the Torah with the new Testament being addtions made by Christian faiths. Fucking wikipedia even says you're wrong. [quote=Wikipedia]The New Testament (Koine Greek: Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη,[1] Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē) is the second major part of the Christian biblical canon, the first part being the Old Testament, which is based on the Hebrew Bible[/quote] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament"]Source[/URL]

[QUOTE=sgman91;47908491]In no Christian theology is this true. People would repent for gay sexual acts, not being gay.[/QUOTE] Only the sex acts themselves are considered a sin!? oh well that makes all the fucking difference, it's okay to be a gay as long as you don't act on it at all, which essentially means being gay isn't okay. [editline]9th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;47910782]Wow the biblical shitstorm in this thread, the bible only really condones sex for pleasure in any form, its taken a large interpretation of a very select amount of passages to condone gays to going to hell. It says a lot more about leaving people alone than it does about homosexuals. The biblical verse has been reinterpreted so many times as it is a reflection of the people reading it, the same verses were used by both sides of the slavery argument to damn and uphold the institution of slavery, but of course most of the prominent theological organizations gloss over this documented fact[/QUOTE] "For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." - Romans 1:26-27 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Doesn't look too positive towards gay people to me

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;47912449]Only the sex acts themselves are considered a sin!? oh well that makes all the fucking difference, it's okay to be a gay as long as you don't act on it at all, which essentially means being gay isn't okay.[/QUOTE] It's a petty big difference. Being gay is something you can't control. Having gay sex is something totally within your control. I think part of the issue comes from how a lot of people associated with the LGBT movement find their identity in their sexuality. So that if they can't express their sexuality, then they aren't expressing who they really are. I would disagree with this. People choose how they want to identify themselves: as a friend, as a good person, etc. Once you get away from finding your identity in you sexuality denying those desires become less about denying yourself and more about denying specific actions.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912488]It's a petty big difference. Being gay is something you can't control. Having gay sex is something totally within your control. I think part of the issue comes from how a lot of people associated with the LGBT movement find their identity in their sexuality. So that if they can't express their sexuality, then they aren't expressing who they really are. I would disagree with this. People choose how they want to identify themselves: as a friend, as a good person, etc. Once you get away from finding your identity in you sexuality denying those desires become less about denying yourself and more about denying specific actions.[/QUOTE] I don't think you can really understand that feeling though, I know you have empathy, but on this issue, I think it might beyond your reach here. For LGBT people, their sexuality is as much a part of their personality as yours is. But, you don't face any issues on this front at any point in your life, you can freely take your sexuality entirely for granted, you'll never have to question yourself or be violently questioned. To them, being told "You can be gay, you just can't be involved in gay activities" they see that as an afront that you wouldn't take sitting down either. They can't take their sexuality for granted. They can't just say "Well sex isn't important" like you might get to, because you've got a baseline where your sexuality isn't questioned and isn't an issue. They don't. Also, sex is incredibly important to a great deal of people, I thoroughly believe, people, as individuals, are different and will need different things. Some people need sex and sexual contact with the people they love.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47912515]I don't think you can really understand that feeling though, I know you have empathy, but on this issue, I think it might beyond your reach here. For LGBT people, their sexuality is as much a part of their personality as yours is. But, you don't face any issues on this front at any point in your life, you can freely take your sexuality entirely for granted, you'll never have to question yourself or be violently questioned. To them, being told "You can be gay, you just can't be involved in gay activities" they see that as an afront that you wouldn't take sitting down either. They can't take their sexuality for granted. They can't just say "Well sex isn't important" like you might get to, because you've got a baseline where your sexuality isn't questioned and isn't an issue. They don't. Also, sex is incredibly important to a great deal of people, I thoroughly believe, people, as individuals, are different and will need different things. Some people need sex and sexual contact with the people they love.[/QUOTE] Let me just say, that nothing I've said takes away from what gay people go through. You're right that I haven't been in that situation, but I know people who have been there. They've worked through it and live happy and fulfilling lives without gay sex. It was hard for them, they felt real pain, and had real struggles, but they were able to overcome it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912567]Let me just say, that nothing I've said takes away from what gay people go through. You're right that I haven't been in that situation, but I know people who have been there. They've worked through it and live happy and fulfilling lives without gay sex. It was hard for them, they felt real pain, and had real struggles, but they were able to overcome it.[/QUOTE] Wonderful, so now they are incapable of actually being themselves, simply on the reason that somebody told them so. Now they can keep telling themselves that they are living happy and fulfilling lives.

[quote=Article]Her belief was described by the tribunal as one that is “[b]worthy of respect in a democratic society[/b], [i]is not incompatible with human dignity and is not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others[/i]”.[/quote] [b]Fair enough, to a degree.[/b] [i]No. Not at all actually.[/i] I respect her opinion, being that it is her opinion, but saying her opinion, being what it is, does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others is bullshit. I mean really. I agree with most of this, but what I've italicized is fucking false, period. Her opinion is shit, it is discrimination, and while she has the right to express her opinion, especially if asked (if that even is what happened in the first place by the way), that by no means assumes it complies with what I pointed out via italics in the article. That's a joke.

being against homosexuality is fucking retarded, and since the freedom to be fucking retarded is a sacred right which all human beings should be entitled to I agree with this decision

[QUOTE=sgman91;47912567]Let me just say, that nothing I've said takes away from what gay people go through. You're right that I haven't been in that situation, but I know people who have been there. They've worked through it and live happy and fulfilling lives without gay sex. It was hard for them, they felt real pain, and had real struggles, but they were able to overcome it.[/QUOTE] I think I went over that though. Some people need it more than others, I think some people are just different and are more in need of certain types of love. I also think people who choose to be celibate are free to do so but I think some reasons are better than others. I feel if someone takes that up because it's better than supposedly sinful life of gay sex that might be personally angry

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47906610]It is saying something is so wrong it can be related to evil. How is that not related to hatred? I don't think she should have been fired, but all the same.[/QUOTE] To be fair, in Christianity, it's not "so wrong," it's just any amount of wrong whatsoever.

[QUOTE=LSK;47912589]Her opinion is shit, it is discrimination, and while she has the right to express her opinion, especially if asked (if that even is what happened in the first place by the way), that by no means assumes it complies with what I pointed out via italics in the article. That's a joke.[/QUOTE] An opinion is not a discrimination. An act against other is. She's not doing anything against anyone, how can she be violating anyones rights? Shit, she wouldn't even be saying anything if she wasn't asked.