Christian thrown out of university over anti-gay remarks posted on Facebook loses appeal - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52829311]American Idiot by Green Day is the greatest post 2000s album.[/QUOTE] Banned from Earth.

[QUOTE=Felix Ngole]"same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not."[/QUOTE] This kind of statement is so awful. If you don't agree with what your god is doing, why are you supporting him? Fuck your god. Who cares that he's supposedly all-powerful - you're already supposed to be giving your life to him, why not instead give your life to oppose the ultimate tyrant?

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52828116]They mean the same thing though. When homosexuality is an undeniable part of who you are, saying that is a sin is saying you are a sinful person.[/QUOTE] But we are all sinful persons from the get go. And if you are atheistic why should you care? Im with Tudd on this one, the discharge is bullshit. You can cite holy texts without having strong belief in it. Have you never seen muslims who drink alcohol?

Compromising someone's education over their shitty beliefs is sure to help them change them for the better.

In all my life, I have never heard a single convincing argument against homosexuality. In terms of sociatal impact, the gender identity of the person you bone down with is meaningless. Even in a society that was severely underpopulated and required additional p̶y̶l̶o̶n̶s̶ babies, people could still make use of sperm donations to ensure a stable birth rate. And short of some massive, extinction-level event, I don't see humanity needing that any time soon. But of all the thick-skulled, narrow-minded excuses to hate gay people, religion is probably one of the all-time dumbest. I dont consider organised religion itself to be evil, per say. But using it to justify your own insecurites, ignorance and spite is just downright cowardly. This little twerp can complain all he wants about "free speech" or whatever, in the end I believe his punishment was justified. The academic body has every right to deny their services to hateful people, and how somebody stupid enough to believe this crap was able to get into it at all is baffling to me. [QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52830146]Compromising someone's education over their shitty beliefs is sure to help them change them for the better.[/QUOTE] If this was a case of a child being kicked out of grade school, you might have a point. But unlike early edication, university and college education is a privelege, not a right. People have to earn their place in universities, and are not required by law to be there. He compromised his own education by remaining willfully ignorant and using his belief system to justify hate speech. The university was not obligated to keep him around, and as such, he lost his privelege.

If God hates gays, fuck God.

As a social worker myself, I have to abide by the NASW Code of Ethics. This also applies to Standards for Technology use. It looks like the UK does have their own Code of Ethics, the BASW. If he was in his masters program, he should very well know his code of ethics and be able to critically apply it in his communication. Yes, he has a right to think the way he does, but it does violate his code of ethics by discriminating against others due to their gender identity. Personally, I don't think he should've been thrown out by the university, but he should've been barred from the social worker program because his own personal views conflict with the social work code of ethics, which would later hinder his performance to work with the unique characteristics that individuals have.

[QUOTE=RoboJesus;52830567]As a social worker myself, I have to abide by the NASW Code of Ethics. This also applies to Standards for Technology use. It looks like the UK does have their own Code of Ethics, the BASW. If he was in his masters program, he should very well know his code of ethics and be able to critically apply it in his communication. Yes, he has a right to think the way he does, but it does violate his code of ethics by discriminating against others due to their gender identity. Personally, I don't think he should've been thrown out by the university, but he should've been barred from the social worker program because his own personal views conflict with the social work code of ethics, which would later hinder his performance to work with the unique characteristics that individuals have.[/QUOTE] What is the definition of "discrimination" used by the code of ethics? Do they make any distinction between words and action?

Going off the BASW because that's what the UK uses, the BASW does not define discrimination. The individual in the news article is discriminating by having an unjust and prejudicial treatment towards others, and he does state that [QUOTE]“the Bible and God identify homosexuality as a sin”, adding that “same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words.”[/QUOTE] This violates BASW 1.1 Ethics in Social Work by having disrespect for human rights towards gay individuals by claiming that what they are doing is a sin. He violates 2.1 Human Rights by not having respect for the inherit worth and dignity of all people as expressed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. He violates 2.2 Social Justice, Principle 2, by not recognizing diversity. He violates 2.3 Professional Integrity, principle 1, by not upholding his values and principles of his profession. Although, he is abiding by principle 5 by being professionally accountable for his judgements and actions through his comments made accessible by the general public. I could go on and nitpick in more detail, but the point is that he did put out a statement that does go against his professional code of conduct, and the social work department that he attended. I'm not trying to be a SJW or anything, we all have biases and as a social worker we need to keep those in check with our use of technology. Again, he has a right to maintain an opinion such as he has, but stating it in a public environment can have repercussions. He made an oops by posting something like that online. All references that I made from the BASW come from [URL]http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_95243-9.pdfhttp://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_95243-9.pdf[/URL]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830633]What is the definition of "discrimination" used by the code of ethics? Do they make any distinction between words and action?[/QUOTE] He was defending someone who actively engaged in discriminatory behavior citing religious freedom. Why should we wait until someone actually gets hurt by someone who adhere to that line of thinking?

Just to clarify, would someone who states that religion, as a protected class, is stupid/ignorant/pigheaded/etc. also be discriminating? Thank you for the detailed answer. I do appreciate it. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52830707]He was defending someone who actively engaged in discriminatory behavior citing religious freedom. Why should we wait until someone actually gets hurt by someone who adhere to that line of thinking?[/QUOTE] IMO, because any opinion can be hurtful to someone. If the only thing we require is for an opinion to be offensive and hurtful to some number of people, then essentially everyone would be barred from service.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830710]Just to clarify, would someone who states that religion, as a protected class, is stupid/ignorant/pigheaded/etc. also be discriminating? Thank you for the detailed answer. I do appreciate it.[/QUOTE] Religion isn't a protected class though?

[QUOTE=Timof2009;52829358]([url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/27/christian-felix-ngole-thrown-out-sheffield-university-anti-gay-remarks-loses-appeal[/url]) Unless you are a christian of course. Man you Brits love to call out "Hatred" by Christians yet protect a vile religion like Islam when it is the reason people are getting killed in your streets. This is absolute moral bankruptcy right here. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Why do people like you think that everywhere outside of the US is literally on fire and burning to the ground right now, what an ego.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830710]IMO, because any opinion can be hurtful to someone. If the only thing we require is for an opinion to be offensive and hurtful to some number of people, then essentially everyone would be barred from service.[/QUOTE] No, the hurtful part is him, as a social worker, engaging in discriminatory behavior which he defended in his post.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830710]Just to clarify, would someone who states that religion, as a protected class, is stupid/ignorant/pigheaded/etc. also be discriminating? Thank you for the detailed answer. I do appreciate it. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] IMO, because any opinion can be hurtful to someone. If the only thing we require is for an opinion to be offensive and hurtful to some number of people, then essentially everyone would be barred from service.[/QUOTE] To continue this discussion, I'll be switching over from the UK and BASW to the US and NASW. This is done because I'm not familiar with the UK and their laws. If a person was to state that another religion is stupid or any other comment that would put a negative connection towards it, then I suppose that would be more of an ignorance and personal bias towards it. To state that that I think Christianity is evil and those who believe it should be a target of hate, then that would be discrimination. In other words, what I'm trying to get at is that the words we use really depend on how we absorb the statement. If I were to make a personal statement here, or on Facebook, or any other social media website, then that can be used against me. I represent my job, internship, college, and profession. I could very easily lose all of that due to one statement of hate. I'm not sure if that answered your question, if it doesn't, let me know and I'll try to clean up my answer and clarify. EDIT: I just seen your edit! Let me respond to that. Yes, opinions can be very hurtful. What the person states in the news article wasn't taken as an opinion, it looks as if he was stating a fact towards the gay community. While this stated fact may hold true in certain Christian communities, this does not hold true to the general public. Social workers work with a wide range of individuals, many of who can be very vulnerable. I can see a situation in which the person from the news article worked with a client, and the client disclosed the information that he was gay, or he was in a gay marriage. It may be possible that client can be harmed through the social workers actions due to their biases towards the client.

[QUOTE=RoboJesus;52830729]EDIT: I just seen your edit! Let me respond to that. Yes, opinions can be very hurtful. What the person states in the news article wasn't taken as an opinion, it looks as if he was stating a fact towards the gay community. While this stated fact may hold true in certain Christian communities, this does not hold true to the general public. Social workers work with a wide range of individuals, many of who can be very vulnerable. I can see a situation in which the person from the news article worked with a client, and the client disclosed the information that he was gay, or he was in a gay marriage. It may be possible that client can be harmed through the social workers actions due to their biases towards the client.[/QUOTE] I really do appreciate your answers as someone familiar with the code. My difficulty is that the idea of what constitutes discrimination seems extremely vague. It seems to be more up to the person doing the discrimination accusation than it does the actual words being spoken. I'm not quite seeing the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact. All moral claims are statements of fact, based on opinion. I'm also not really behind your claim that a statement like that made by the person in question has a causal connection with mistreatment of a gay person during social work. For example, a Christian might say, "I think narcissism is sinful." Would that mean that this Christian shouldn't be a social worker based on the fact that they may come into contact with a vulnerable narcissist, and may not treat them fairly? This line of logic would exclude everyone from service. I see a clear distinction between not agreeing with a person's actions, or even their character as a person, and mistreating that person. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52830715]Religion isn't a protected class though?[/QUOTE] Yes it is. These are the legally recognized protected classes in the UK: -Race. -Color. -Religion or creed. -National origin or ancestry. -Sex. -Age. -Physical or mental disability. -Veteran status. -Genetic information. -Citizenship. ([URL]https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-501-5857?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1)[/URL]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830779]I really do appreciate your answers as someone familiar with the code. My difficulty is that the idea of what constitutes discrimination seems extremely vague. It seems to be more up to the person doing the discrimination accusation than it does the actual words being spoken. I'm not quite seeing the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact. All moral claims are statements of fact, based on opinion. I'm also not really behind your claim that a statement like that made by the person in question has a causal connection with mistreatment of a gay person during social work. For example, a Christian might say, "I think narcissism is sinful." Would that mean that this Christian shouldn't be a social worker based on the fact that they may come into contact with a vulnerable narcissist, and may not treat them fairly? I see a clear distinction between not agreeing with a person's actions, or even their character as a person, and mistreating that person. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] Yes it is. These are the legally recognized protected classes in the UK: -Race. -Color. -Religion or creed. -National origin or ancestry. -Sex. -Age. -Physical or mental disability. -Veteran status. -Genetic information. -Citizenship. ([URL]https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-501-5857?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1)[/URL][/QUOTE] Thank you! I do appreciate being able to look at this topic and attempt to analyze it. I just want to clarify something before I continue. Many people can be social workers, and these people will always have biases. Even I have biases towards others. But social workers should be able to limit their biases so it does not impact their practice. In the scenario that your biases are, in fact, hindering your ability to practice your profession, then you should refer your client to another social worker who may be better at helping your client. Acknowledging your biases is very important, that way you can begin to understand when they may impact you in your practice. A Christian social worker may have the belief that narcissism is sinful, which is understandable when you take in the fact that the social worker is Christian. The social worker may be working with the client and realize that they're experiencing feelings that are being triggered from their client. The social worker would then refer the client to another social worker that may not share the same viewpoint or at least to that extreme. The new social worker doesn't always have to be under the same agency, for example, if you realize that all the other Christian social workers share the same viewpoint, they may want to refer the client down the street to the non-Christian agency who may better suit the client. The person in the article unfortunately let his biases get the better of him, and on the worst place of all, the internet! Here in the US, the NASW has a use of technology guidelines. It's very similar to the NASW guidelines, but suited for electronic communication. This was made because they acknowledge that online communication has a huge impact of how our profession operates, and we need to be aware of the consequences that can occur. If the person in the article never posted what he did, he would still be in college. It's possible that he would learn how to acknowledge is biases through use of instruction and writing papers. But if he was at the masters level and still making these decisions, then something was really wrong there. Alrighty folks! I must get ready to go to my job. I won't be back for awhile.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52829311] American Idiot by Green Day is the greatest post 2000s album. [/QUOTE] What the fuck

[QUOTE=sgman91;52830710]Just to clarify, would someone who states that religion, as a protected class, is stupid/ignorant/pigheaded/etc. also be discriminating? Thank you for the detailed answer. I do appreciate it. [editline]28th October 2017[/editline] IMO, because any opinion can be hurtful to someone. If the only thing we require is for an opinion to be offensive and hurtful to some number of people, then essentially everyone would be barred from service.[/QUOTE] God shut the fuck up. You don't deserve an eloquent answer because this is just devil's advocate false equivalency garbage. "Gay people are innately sinful" and "I hate how much harm organized religion, specifically Christianity, has done throughout history" are not the same thing you slug. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming - You can deliver that message better" - Reagy))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52828662]True, but there isn't such a thing as "greater sin". They're all equally bad under Christianity. [editline]27th October 2017[/editline] Hi, i'm a christian and I work in the medical field. I treat everyone with dignity and respect because that's what my religion requires, and what my job demands. At the end of the day I don't have a problem with anyone, because at the end of the day your issues are between you and god, so who am I to judge?[/QUOTE] Okay? What's your point? Because mine wasn't "religion=can't work in medical", it was "acts like a bigot=can't work in medical" which is very different and indisputable no matter what way you spin it. The only thing is that a lot of people, like the person in the article, use their religion as a scapegoat for being bigoted

[QUOTE=RoboJesus;52830812]The person in the article unfortunately let his biases get the better of him, and on the worst place of all, the internet! Here in the US, the NASW has a use of technology guidelines. It's very similar to the NASW guidelines, but suited for electronic communication. This was made because they acknowledge that online communication has a huge impact of how our profession operates, and we need to be aware of the consequences that can occur. If the person in the article never posted what he did, he would still be in college. It's possible that he would learn how to acknowledge is biases through use of instruction and writing papers. But if he was at the masters level and still making these decisions, then something was really wrong there.[/QUOTE] Just to clarify, is the problem that he has the views in question or that he wrote them on facebook? Is the fear that he won't be able to treat gay people fairly or that people may see his post and feel uncomfortable? I ask because if it's the prior, that the actual view is problematic to being a social worker, then I'm not sure how that would allow the person who thinks narcissism is sinful, or thinking that sin exists at all, to be a social worker. In the Christian view, all people are sinners. So if thinking that a person is sinful is enough to bar you from being a social worker, then no Christian/Muslim/etc. would be allowed. On the other hand, if it's the latter, that they fear a gay person may read his Facebook post and feel uncomfortable, then I have more sympathy for that view. I don't see how the punishment fits the crime, though. The solution would simply be to delete said post, or make it private, not kick the person out of the program. I really do hope that you're able to respond later. Your clarification has been very helpful.

i really don't get how tudd isn't banned, he hides behind a paper thin veil of civility but everything he posts is shitposts pushing his agenda then you get these wonderful threads of people arguing over why the gays should be frowned upon because jesus said so [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not a Tudd Thread" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

To be honest I disagree with the ruling a) The person was expressing their views, not inciting violence against a protected group b) it's questionable for a university to be basing expulsion based on a facebook feed which is not in any way illegal or even considered immoral. The view might be disagreeable but from the standpoint of understand religion exists it's not really abhorrent. [QUOTE=RoboJesus;52830700]Going off the BASW because that's what the UK uses, the BASW does not define discrimination. The individual in the news article is discriminating by having an unjust and prejudicial treatment towards others, and he does state that This violates BASW 1.1 Ethics in Social Work by having disrespect for human rights towards gay individuals by claiming that what they are doing is a sin. He violates 2.1 Human Rights by not having respect for the inherit worth and dignity of all people as expressed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. He violates 2.2 Social Justice, Principle 2, by not recognizing diversity. He violates 2.3 Professional Integrity, principle 1, by not upholding his values and principles of his profession. Although, he is abiding by principle 5 by being professionally accountable for his judgements and actions through his comments made accessible by the general public. I could go on and nitpick in more detail, but the point is that he did put out a statement that does go against his professional code of conduct, and the social work department that he attended. I'm not trying to be a SJW or anything, we all have biases and as a social worker we need to keep those in check with our use of technology. Again, he has a right to maintain an opinion such as he has, but stating it in a public environment can have repercussions. He made an oops by posting something like that online. All references that I made from the BASW come from [URL]http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_95243-9.pdfhttp://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_95243-9.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] From someone who works with law, those views aren't even on the edge and it will usually come down to wordsmithing one way or another.