ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th September 2020, 05:45 AM   #241
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
C'mon Pixel, we were always talking about discrimination based on race, colour, sexual orientation and other things that are illegal to discriminate against. I require Darat to cite examples where discrimination against a protected class is legal.

Goal posts moved.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
...snip..

Nope, this is untrue; its not discrimination, its hiring an actor based on a BFOQ (or GOQ in the UK)
Redefining what the word discrimination means.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 27th September 2020 at 05:52 AM. Reason: Word
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2020, 05:51 AM   #242
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
https://www.sterlingcheck.co.uk/blog...k-when-hiring/

"“HR departments can carry out social media checks on all applicants before they get to the interview stage, in order to build an idea of who they are as a person and what kind of employee they are likely to be,” remarks Emma O’Leary, legal advisor at Elas. “While this can help identify any potential areas of concern, vetting candidates in this way can also throw up some risks to you as an employer. If you discover that an applicant possesses one of the protected characteristics – for example, if they are disabled or of a particular race or sexual orientation – and that puts you off hiring them, the risk of a discrimination claim is real, should your vetting be exposed.”

The associated risks are based around making recruitment decisions with conscious or even sub-conscious bias, based on something that the hiring manager has seen on social media, she adds. “If that bias is against a particular protected characteristic, then it may well render the company liable to claims of discrimination without a candidate even being offered a job.”

Edit:

"You should also inform candidates that you may be conducting research on all applicants online prior to interview, and obtain their consent beforehand, so they are aware and can decide for themselves what they wish to have private or public on their social profiles.

“If a candidate has a social media profile, they have not created it for their employers – even if it is public and available in the public domain – and they have not necessarily given consent for it to be used as part of the employment process,” comments Bhavini Kalaria, managing director, London Law Practice. “So if an employer is considering using social media as part of their recruitment process, they should seek express permission so that candidates are aware of it.”
The only “safe” social media profile to use in hiring decisions is LinkedIn as that is set up for companies and potential hires to use so you can assume a profile is created for employers to see.

Anything else and it’s not worth the potential problems it can cause.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2020, 12:15 PM   #243
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Goal posts moved.
Seriously? You seriously do not understand that absolutely everyone was was talking about racial, sexual orientation and religious discrimination. The whole thread is about this.

Well I am not letting you off that easily. Either provide valid examples of cases where it is legal to discriminate against people based on a protected attribute, or withdraw the claim you made in post #228 (GOQ's are not valid examples)

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Redefining what the word discrimination means.
Take it up with your Law Lords!
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th September 2020 at 12:40 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2020, 12:34 PM   #244
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
https://www.sterlingcheck.co.uk/blog...k-when-hiring/

"“HR departments can carry out social media checks on all applicants before they get to the interview stage, in order to build an idea of who they are as a person and what kind of employee they are likely to be,” remarks Emma O’Leary, legal advisor at Elas. “While this can help identify any potential areas of concern, vetting candidates in this way can also throw up some risks to you as an employer. If you discover that an applicant possesses one of the protected characteristics – for example, if they are disabled or of a particular race or sexual orientation – and that puts you off hiring them, the risk of a discrimination claim is real, should your vetting be exposed.”

The associated risks are based around making recruitment decisions with conscious or even sub-conscious bias, based on something that the hiring manager has seen on social media, she adds. “If that bias is against a particular protected characteristic, then it may well render the company liable to claims of discrimination without a candidate even being offered a job.”

Edit:

"You should also inform candidates that you may be conducting research on all applicants online prior to interview, and obtain their consent beforehand, so they are aware and can decide for themselves what they wish to have private or public on their social profiles.

“If a candidate has a social media profile, they have not created it for their employers – even if it is public and available in the public domain – and they have not necessarily given consent for it to be used as part of the employment process,” comments Bhavini Kalaria, managing director, London Law Practice. “So if an employer is considering using social media as part of their recruitment process, they should seek express permission so that candidates are aware of it.”

None of this applies here though.
"HR must therefore ensure all hiring managers have a clear understanding of what information they can draw on when using social media in recruitment, and that they base hiring decisions on information found that is relevant to the job role."
A potential school hiring a GC and rejecting Higgs on the basis of things they find in her social media profile would be doing so on the basis that she has a proven record of going against the her employer's policies and rules. Her reasons for doing so (her Religion) are not relevant - "troublemaker" and "violater" are not protected classes of people.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th September 2020 at 12:44 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2020, 01:22 AM   #245
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Interestingly of course if the current hate crimes bill goes forward then this might be a crime (in Scotland).
Doubt it, when the various "hate speech" E&W legislation was in the process of passing lots of us were very uneasy, there were campaigns from the likes of stand up comedians stating they wouldn't be able to make jokes about religion etc. However the actual legal precedents have really narrowed down what is actually actionable and/or not allowed. Often it has been on the bases of what the European human rights outline, and since a few have gone up to the SC that sets the precedent for all of the UK.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2020, 01:24 AM   #246
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
None of this applies here though.


"HR must therefore ensure all hiring managers have a clear understanding of what information they can draw on when using social media in recruitment, and that they base hiring decisions on information found that is relevant to the job role."



A potential school hiring a GC and rejecting Higgs on the basis of things they find in her social media profile would be doing so on the basis that she has a proven record of going against the her employer's policies and rules. Her reasons for doing so (her Religion) are not relevant - "troublemaker" and "violater" are not protected classes of people.
If they want to potentially open themselves up to a discrimination claim yes they could.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2020, 07:48 AM   #247
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,728
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Well, the topic is also important.

"School lunches are terribly unhealthy and the government does nothing about it" should not be sackable but




"My god thinks that LGBTQ+ people are unnatural freaks and the government should not allow that children even get to know the topic" absolutely should.
She needs to pay more attention to the bible.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2020, 09:19 AM   #248
RedStapler
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
She needs to pay more attention to the bible.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12
This is what really gets to me.

"The supernatural creator of the universe has laid out rules but since all believers silently agree that the creator has gone silent for 2000 years, we just change and/or ignore these rules as we see fit.
Which means for example: Women are somewhat ok, let's give them some rights contrary to gods words. God is silent on this, so he is probably ok with it.
Still no female priests for some religions, but homosexual people? No no no, the bible says they are bad!
What you say, we change the rules all the time? That's right, but the bible says gay people are bad!"
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 07:46 AM   #249
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 264
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...gainst-sacking

So, not her "christian" beliefs...Which is not surprising: I mean, why would a CoE school be sacking someone for being a "christian"?

Last edited by Carrot Flower King; 8th October 2020 at 07:51 AM. Reason: Adding some words
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 08:10 AM   #250
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
I'm genuinely surprised. Given the reports seemed it was a clear dunk, wrongful dismissal, I'm now definitely of the opinion that there was more than was initially reported when the media used the briefing document from the centre.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 08:31 AM   #251
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,728
Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King View Post
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...gainst-sacking

So, not her "christian" beliefs...Which is not surprising: I mean, why would a CoE school be sacking someone for being a "christian"?
She says

“I am aware that same-sex marriages are now recognised under UK law, but I believe that is contrary to God’s law, which only recognises marriages between one man and one woman.”

Wow she is a nut, where in the bible did god change his mind and limit men to only 1 wife? Is she saying god made a mistake in letting men have many wives and concubines? What about your moral obligation to bang your brothers widow?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 08:32 AM   #252
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,648
I know the particulars of what her beliefs are is not really the topic, but I was struck by the presumption of this: “I believe that God created mankind as ‘male and female’ and what he has created is good. He does not make mistakes. I therefore do not believe in the modern ideas of gender fluidity and transgenderism."

There are a whole bundle of assumptions wrapped up in that, including that gender fluidity is a "modern idea" (rather than just something fairly ordinary which Western culture has avoided talking about for a long time) and that she's firmly convinced she knows exactly what her God intended people to be like and it ain't like that. Seems startlingly presumptuous, even if she doesn't see it.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 10:31 AM   #253
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm genuinely surprised. Given the reports seemed it was a clear dunk, wrongful dismissal, I'm now definitely of the opinion that there was more than was initially reported when the media used the briefing document from the centre.
The CLC has previous on completely misrepresenting what a given case is about and distorting things to make it appear that "christian beliefs" are under attack rather it being about something else completely (see the nurse and jewellery one I mentioned previously).

Just in case anyone wonders why I keep using quotation marks, it's because the beliefs in question bear no resemblance to anything I read in the New Testament or that I was taught at church as a child.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 09:15 PM   #254
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
I'm not surprised one bit.

For mine, her behaviour was clear and obvious misconduct. The school has a policy; if you are employed by the school, you adhere to the policy even of you don't like it. You certainly do NOT publicly dissent (not even under cover of a thinly veiled pseudonym).

If you have a problem with the policy that you really can't live with, you resign your job and then you are free to criticise without repercussions.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th October 2020 at 09:21 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 10:56 PM   #255
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,717
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm genuinely surprised. Given the reports seemed it was a clear dunk, wrongful dismissal, I'm now definitely of the opinion that there was more than was initially reported when the media used the briefing document from the centre.
No. The trubunal ruled that her sacking was justified just because of her facebook posts.

It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 11:12 PM   #256
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,611
When religious beliefs contradict the law, the law takes precedence. That's true whether the belief is that a virgin must be sacrificed to ensure the sun rises, that anyone who draws a picture of the prophet must be killed, or that homosexuals are an abomination who should not have the same rights as heterosexuals.

There's nothing that can be done to stop people holding such beliefs, but acting on them is indeed outlawed. Someone whose job requires them to act against their religious beliefs should probably get a different job.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 8th October 2020 at 11:15 PM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2020, 11:21 PM   #257
RedStapler
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
Yup, the highlight is very true, the rest is a strawman.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 01:09 AM   #258
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. The trubunal ruled that her sacking was justified just because of her facebook posts.
Utter poppycock.

She was sacked because the content of her facebook posts directly contradicted the school's stated policy, a policy that she will have signed up to when she was contracted. At best, this is a slam dunk breach of contract, at worst it is an act of gross misconduct. It was the objectionable content of her posts that made it gross misconduct.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
Yes, Christian beliefs are homophobic and transphobic, and yes, she is allowed to hold them if she so chooses, and yes, she is even allowed to express them. What she is not allowed to to do is express them in the context of undermining her employer's policy. That is the bottom line!
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 01:29 AM   #259
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,717
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Utter poppycock.

She was sacked because the content of her facebook posts directly contradicted the school's stated policy, a policy that she will have signed up to when she was contracted. At best, this is a slam dunk breach of contract, at worst it is an act of gross misconduct. It was the objectionable content of her posts that made it gross misconduct.
How is that not because of her facebook posts?

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes, Christian beliefs are homophobic and transphobic, and yes, she is allowed to hold them if she so chooses, and yes, she is even allowed to express them. What she is not allowed to to do is express them in the context of undermining her employer's policy. That is the bottom line!
I know that facts don't matter to you but it wasn't her "employer's policy". The tribunal didn't even make that finding.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 02:41 AM   #260
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
Bolleaux.

Like I said, I do not recognise the things she said/wrote about homosexuality, marriage and trans issues as being "christian", certainly don't bear any resemblance to what I learned in church or studying the New Testament for my O-level Religious Education.

If someone can point out where her views are supported in "christian thinking" I'd be grateful...

Whatever happened to love thy neighbour?
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 02:46 AM   #261
RedStapler
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
How is that not because of her facebook posts?


I know that facts don't matter to you but it wasn't her "employer's policy". The tribunal didn't even make that finding.
The important thing here is: The bible thumping bitch got sacked.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 02:46 AM   #262
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm genuinely surprised. Given the reports seemed it was a clear dunk, wrongful dismissal, I'm now definitely of the opinion that there was more than was initially reported when the media used the briefing document from the centre.
There really isn't.

The judgement is here.

https://christianconcern.com/wp-cont...-ET-201007.pdf

The reasoning is complex. The school's explanation for dismissing her is criticised for being opaque. Her claim for discrimination on grounds of religion is rejected. The tribunal seems to hint that a claim arguing that her behaviour did not amount to gross misconduct would have stood a better chance.

Quote:
It is important to bear in mind that this was not a claim of unfair dismissal.
We were not concerned to decide whether the School’s actions were
reasonable or not. It might be contended that there was a different course of
action the School could have taken, in the light of the position made clear
by Mrs Higgs in the disciplinary process. Since she denied being
homophobic or transphobic, a reasonable employer might have taken the
view that justice would be served by her (or the School) making it clear that
if anyone thought she held those views they had got “the wrong end of the
stick” – that pupils and parents should not be concerned that she would
demonstrate any sort of hostility to gay or trans pupils (or indeed gay or
trans parents).

Last edited by Aber; 9th October 2020 at 02:48 AM.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 02:48 AM   #263
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 264
And again, why on earth would a CoE school be sacking someone for espousing "christian beliefs"?
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 02:52 AM   #264
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
How is that not because of her facebook posts?
Because you clearly implied that it was just because of her facebook posts and not for what she said in them... in other words, you are compelely ignoring the most important aspect of this... context.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I know that facts don't matter to you but it wasn't her "employer's policy". The tribunal didn't even make that finding.
I know that facts don't matter to you but it was in fact her employer's policy; or more correctly, their mandated duty.

https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/best-practi...-need-to-know/

Quote:
The role of school governing bodies

Governing bodies are the “responsible body” for ensuring that the school meets the requirements of equality legislation. Essentially this means they should:

Ensure the school takes all reasonable steps to ensure that its employees do not carry out unlawful discriminatory actions or behaviour.
Support and guide the school to have “due regard” for equality in all its functions.
Ensure the school complies with the Equality Duty and meets the two “specific duties” for schools.
Quote:
In England and Wales, the Act applies to all maintained and independent schools, as well as academies and free schools. It covers all aspects of school life to do with how a school treats pupils and prospective pupils, parents and carers, employees, and members of the community
Ergo, the fact that school must follow the requirement of that Act of Parliament, they de-facto have a policy/duty to do so.
By undermining that policy/duty, she is undermining the School and discriminating against protected classes of students.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th October 2020 at 02:55 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 02:53 AM   #265
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
The important thing here is: The fundamentalist Christian bible thumping bitch got sacked.
FTFY

And well gone IMO. If she feels so strongly about her anti-LGBT views that she can't shut up about them, how can she be trusted to to counsel LGBT students?
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th October 2020 at 02:59 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 03:31 AM   #266
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. The trubunal ruled that her sacking was justified just because of her facebook posts.

It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
How about reading the full tribunal findings, as per the link Aber provided?
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 04:33 AM   #267
RolandRat
Muse
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 727
Well she is planning to appeal so it isn't over yet.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 05:07 AM   #268
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Well she is planning to appeal so it isn't over yet.
The media seems to have relied for their reporting on the obviously slanted information provided by the CLC.

As ever the devil is in the detail.

This was already her 2nd bite so I doubt there will be any grounds for an appeal.

And it being the 2nd bite explains the strange verdict. This was her second case and was about the process the school used, not whether she was unfairly dismissed because of her religious beliefs. So for this tribunal it mattered not one iota about her religious beliefs, it was whether the school had followed correct processes.

Her original claim last year was for unfair dismissal but she withdrew that: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...l-1401264-2019

In the end she has never actually took her former employers to a tribunal for a claim for unfair dismissal based on her right to hold religious beliefs, she withdrew that, what she took her employer to court for was not following proper procedures.

This second verdict says nothing about her religious beliefs, whether they are OK or not, all it tells us is that the school acted appropriately in the processes they followed.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 05:14 AM   #269
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
There really isn't.

The judgement is here.

https://christianconcern.com/wp-cont...-ET-201007.pdf

The reasoning is complex. The school's explanation for dismissing her is criticised for being opaque. Her claim for discrimination on grounds of religion is rejected. The tribunal seems to hint that a claim arguing that her behaviour did not amount to gross misconduct would have stood a better chance.
Yeah as I posted above this was very carefully spun by the CLC to the press and as usual the press didn’t look beyond the briefing from the CLC, they gave the press a ready made, sound bite friendly click worthy headline and the press ran with it.

Hats off to the CLC for making people think this was about her religious beliefs rather than a rather dry examination of the processes involved.

And given she withdrew her claim for unfair dismissal based on discrimination because of her religious beliefs she and the CLC can’t have been very confident they could swing such a claim. I do wonder what other evidence the school provided during the first tribunal that made her and the CLC withdraw her claim for religious discrimination?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 05:18 AM   #270
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. The trubunal ruled that her sacking was justified just because of her facebook posts.

It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
You are aware in the UK we don’t have separation of state and religion? That we have an established church, a Christian established church? That our head of state is also the head of the CofE, that the CofE have bishops and votes in our legislative?

Somehow I don’t think we are going to be seeing the Queen in irons before a court and being kept in the Tower of London....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 05:24 AM   #271
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The media seems to have relied for their reporting on the obviously slanted information provided by the CLC.

As ever the devil is in the detail.

This was already her 2nd bite so I doubt there will be any grounds for an appeal.

And it being the 2nd bite explains the strange verdict. This was her second case and was about the process the school used, not whether she was unfairly dismissed because of her religious beliefs. So for this tribunal it mattered not one iota about her religious beliefs, it was whether the school had followed correct processes.
I don't think your summary is correct. From the first line of the judgement:

Quote:
In this case the claimant Mrs Higgs claimed she had been unlawfully
discriminated against on the ground of religion.
She also made claims that the process was not fair, but that is perfectly normal at employment tribunal as process is a cause for many employers defences failing.

IANAL but it is unclear to me whether she could actually revive her unfair dismissal claim as it never made it to the tribunal. An appeal against this decision might be harder.

There will be wider interest in other parts of the judgement on whether sex is biologically immutable is a protected belief. To be so a belief:
Quote:
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Previous Employment Tribunal cases have judged it is not protected:
Quote:
cases of Forstater v CGD Europe and Mackereth v DWP and another. In both cases the Employment Tribunal concluded that the final test in Grainger was not met in relation to a belief that sex was biologically immutable and could not be changed – essentially the belief we were addressing.
This Tribunal disagreed:
Quote:
The belief that sex and gender are “set at birth” may be upsetting to certain people but if freedom of speech and the rights within articles 9 and 10 of the Convention only extended to expressions of belief that could upset no-one they would be worthless. Essentially, to find as the tribunals did in the cases to which we were referred would amount to a declaration that it is “open season” on people that hold and express the beliefs in question – that they do not deserve protection. That seemed to us to be a strange and somewhat disturbing conclusion.

Last edited by Aber; 9th October 2020 at 05:27 AM.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 05:48 AM   #272
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,222
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
I don't think your summary is correct. From the first line of the judgement:



She also made claims that the process was not fair, but that is perfectly normal at employment tribunal as process is a cause for many employers defences failing.

IANAL but it is unclear to me whether she could actually revive her unfair dismissal claim as it never made it to the tribunal. An appeal against this decision might be harder.

There will be wider interest in other parts of the judgement on whether sex is biologically immutable is a protected belief. To be so a belief:


Previous Employment Tribunal cases have judged it is not protected:


This Tribunal disagreed:
But the actual meat of the claim was that the process used discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs, that was why they’d also brought up the idea of too many people being involved in some of the meetings, that the meetings went on too long, that notes weren’t accurate, that the dismissal letter was badly worded, that the school used additional information afterwards to justify their claim and so on, it was a typical throw everything against the wall to see what will stick.

They knew they couldn’t win on the bases of her right to freedom of religion, that’s why she withdrew her original claim but for their agenda they still needed to tie in what they consider are “christian” beliefs to the processes followed. As the tribunal judgement makes very clear the school processes were appropriate and probably a tad too officious.

_____________________________

You do get an idea that the tribunal was rather ..er... perplexed about how she behaves:

Quote:
...snip...


The contents of the dismissal letter.
We concluded that the reference in the dismissal letter to the demeanour of Mrs Higgs at the disciplinary hearing was a genuine reflection of the School’s opinion. Indeed, before us, she also appeared unable or unwilling to give straightforward answers to simple questions.

...snip...

What a surprise.....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 06:18 AM   #273
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,717
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because you clearly implied that it was just because of her facebook posts and not for what she said in them... in other words, you are compelely ignoring the most important aspect of this... context.
Only
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
would think that I was saying that it was only about the fact that she made a couple of facebook posts regardless of their content. If that was the case then everybody in the whole world who made a facebook posting would be liable to sacking.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by zooterkin; 12th October 2020 at 11:51 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 06:26 AM   #274
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
As the tribunal judgement makes very clear the school processes were appropriate and probably a tad too officious.
Having been a school governor, I can understand that due process was followed to the letter, but also that due process doesn't always get the right result.

The school governors now have the problem of setting a very low bar for dismissing someone for controversial views on social media.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 06:53 AM   #275
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,105
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. The trubunal ruled that her sacking was justified just because of her facebook posts.
Bollocks. You're making stuff up, again.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.
Yes they are, and should be.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 06:54 AM   #276
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23,105
Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King View Post
And again, why on earth would a CoE school be sacking someone for espousing "christian beliefs"?
Because "christianity" encompasses as many variations as "socialism".
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 10:39 AM   #277
RedStapler
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Only
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
would think that I was saying that it was only about the fact that she made a couple of facebook posts regardless of their content. If that was the case then everybody in the whole world who made a facebook posting would be liable to sacking.

Well ,that is actually what you posted.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. The trubunal ruled that her sacking was justified just because of her facebook posts.

It's official - Christian beliefs are "homophobic and transphobic" and must be outlawed.

Last edited by zooterkin; 12th October 2020 at 11:52 AM.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 11:10 AM   #278
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Only
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
would think that I was saying that it was only about the fact that she made a couple of facebook posts regardless of their content. If that was the case then everybody in the whole world who made a facebook posting would be liable to sacking.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.


Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Well ,that is actually what you posted.
Indeed. Psionl0 seems to have forgotten what he posted in the space of only 7 hrs 22 minutes
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by zooterkin; 12th October 2020 at 11:53 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 12:34 PM   #279
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,924
If someone were to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced for murdering someone by dropping a wooden crate of Bibles on top of them in a warehouse, I'm sure there would be Christians complaining, "Look, now they're making it a crime to bring people the word of God!"
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2020, 08:19 PM   #280
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,717
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Well ,that is actually what you posted.
You highlighted the wrong part. You should have highlighted "regardless of their content" which I didn't post or intend to post. I was responding to Darat's suspicion that there was more than her posts involved in the case.

Of course, it's hard to construct a good strawman argument if you quote accurately.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.